PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[LeonardoDaVnci]

As a lay person, I just can't understand why this would take 4 years to resolve. How about this timetable

1 Sponsorship of MCFC by Aabar within the PL rules 1 week

2 Sponsorship of MCFC by Etisalat within the PL rules 1 week

3 Sponsorship of MCFC by Etihad Airways within PL rules 2 weeks

4 MCFC use of image rights within PL rules 1 week

5 MCFC payments to Roberto Mancini within PL rules 1 week

6 All non cooperation charges 2 weeks

7 Summary, conclusions and decisions 4 weeks.

That's 3 months done and dusted, get into a project planner and get it done. I think the Bernie Madof case took less than 4 years !!!

 

[CC1]

This is an interesting post but can you clarify the points about the High Court Ruling

The high court action I believe was about the PLs right or competence (if that’s the correct words ) to arbitrate and no about failure to forward documents and yes I know the cause of the PLs wish to go to arbitration
Of course it would be madness to think that City didn’t following the ruling and you would assume arbitration then to supply every thing that the PL requested but looking again at the City statement it sort of implies that all documents requested were supplied but doesn’t actually say that

The arbitration that was the subject of the High Court judgment, which was upheld by the Court of Appeal, related not to the process more generally but specifically to an arbitration process that was initiated within the investigation to deal with a point of contention between the two sides.

That's referred to in para 9 of the Court of Appeal's Judgment. This specifies that "an arbitration [was commenced in October 2019] against the Club under Section X of the Rules seeking a declaration and/or determination that the Club was obliged to provide the PL with requested documents and information and an order for specific performance of the Club's contractual obligation to deliver up documents and information which were being withheld".

After some to-ing and fro-ing, according to para 14 of the same Judgment, on 24 July 2020, the "tribunal rejected the Club's arguments resisting the PL's case that it was under an obligation to provide certain documents and information to the PL ... [and] on 2 November 2020, the tribunal ordered the Club to provide certain documents and information to the PL and to make enquiries of third parties".

That order was stayed while MCFC's application to the Commercial Court was heard, the club having taken action alleging that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction and was tainted by bias. Ultimately the lost lost in both the Court of Appeal, so the tribunal's order dated 24 July 2020 will have come into effect.

None of this means that MCFC have a defence to non-cooperation charges, as others have also said. However, I've argued that it can be presented as a mitigating factor reducing the amount of a possible sanction if the club can show that, since then, it's complied with the ruling of the tribunal. In other words, it's done what it should ever since it established that it was actually was under an obligation to do so.

I agree that the club's statement doesn't specifically say that all requested documents have been provided. Y0ou'd have thought they have, but who knows? Maybe there are still disputes about the issue. I suspect, though, that they were commenting without having had time to digest the charges and wanted to put out a statement that generally expressed considerable confidence without getting bogged down in any detail.

Do you think he’s (terraloon) on the panel & needs help from our better informed fans:).:)

 

[LeonardoDaVnci]

As a lay person, I just can't understand why this would take 4 years to resolve. How about this timetable

1 Sponsorship of MCFC by Aabar within the PL rules 1 week

2 Sponsorship of MCFC by Etisalat within the PL rules 1 week

3 Sponsorship of MCFC by Etihad Airways within PL rules 2 weeks

4 MCFC use of image rights within PL rules 1 week

5 MCFC payments to Roberto Mancini within PL rules 1 week

6 All non cooperation charges 2 weeks

7 Summary, conclusions and decisions 4 weeks.

That's 3 months done and dusted, get into a project planner and get it done. I think the Bernie Madof case took less than 4 years !!!

I'm trying to say these 6 questions are not complex, it's not quantum computing, just some bank transactions, accounts documents and spreadsheets. Either the PL can prove we are guilty re questions 1 6 or they can't. Let's just get this done and over with ASAP or is this just Lawyers making hay will the sun shines

 

[dadnlad]

As a lay person, I just can't understand why this would take 4 years to resolve. How about this timetable

1 Sponsorship of MCFC by Aabar within the PL rules 1 week

2 Sponsorship of MCFC by Etisalat within the PL rules 1 week

3 Sponsorship of MCFC by Etihad Airways within PL rules 2 weeks

4 MCFC use of image rights within PL rules 1 week

5 MCFC payments to Roberto Mancini within PL rules 1 week

6 All non cooperation charges 2 weeks

7 Summary, conclusions and decisions 4 weeks.

That's 3 months done and dusted, get into a project planner and get it done. I think the Bernie Madof case took less than 4 years !!!

hope your not a solicitor in real life cause you'll never make money. you missed out letter sending weeks and awaiting reply weeks

 

[Bloominmarvellous]

The arbitration that was the subject of the High Court judgment, which was upheld by the Court of Appeal, related not to the process more generally but specifically to an arbitration process that was initiated within the investigation to deal with a point of contention between the two sides.

That's referred to in para 9 of the Court of Appeal's Judgment. This specifies that "an arbitration [was commenced in October 2019] against the Club under Section X of the Rules seeking a declaration and/or determination that the Club was obliged to provide the PL with requested documents and information and an order for specific performance of the Club's contractual obligation to deliver up documents and information which were being withheld".

After some to-ing and fro-ing, according to para 14 of the same Judgment, on 24 July 2020, the "tribunal rejected the Club's arguments resisting the PL's case that it was under an obligation to provide certain documents and information to the PL ... [and] on 2 November 2020, the tribunal ordered the Club to provide certain documents and information to the PL and to make enquiries of third parties".

That order was stayed while MCFC's application to the Commercial Court was heard, the club having taken action alleging that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction and was tainted by bias. Ultimately the lost lost in both the Court of Appeal, so the tribunal's order dated 24 July 2020 will have come into effect.

None of this means that MCFC have a defence to non-cooperation charges, as others have also said. However, I've argued that it can be presented as a mitigating factor reducing the amount of a possible sanction if the club can show that, since then, it's complied with the ruling of the tribunal. In other words, it's done what it should ever since it established that it was actually was under an obligation to do so.

I agree that the club's statement doesn't specifically say that all requested documents have been provided. Y0ou'd have thought they have, but who knows? Maybe there are still disputes about the issue. I suspect, though, that they were commenting without having had time to digest the charges and wanted to put out a statement that generally expressed considerable confidence without getting bogged down in any detail.

I would have thought City could easily defend the non cooperation charges if they did provide the information requested by the PL after the appeal hearing.

They could quite easily claim up until that point they were gaining clarity over the procedural requirement to supply information and the breadth of this requirement. You could argue quite easily that the requirement to cooperate has been fulfilled from the point that clarity was reached and that anything prior was just awaiting this clarification and not non cooperation as such.

 

[journolud]

Ok Gladys

Once this is done with we'll all be Gladys, all over.

 

[BringBackSwales]

Once this is done with we'll all be Gladys, all over.

I’ll pass you your coat

 

[terraloon]

Do you think he’s (terraloon) on the panel & needs help from our better informed fans:).:)

THE A

Do you think he’s (terraloon) on the panel & needs help from our better informed fans:).:)

So my point is valid in that

1) The High Court ruled on the competency of the PL Arbitration panel and not making an order to disclose documents.

2) We have absolutely no idea if Man City supplied the information a) requested by the PL and b) confirmed as being “ appropriate “ by the arbitration panel

As I say it would opening up all sorts of problems if they still flatly refused to supply any and everything that the arbitration panel agreed was relevant

 

[mattcity5]

But what are tge PL risking? I think their risk was greater by doing nothing.
I really can't see how them losing the case is damaging, surely they hold hands up and confess to doing all they can. No cooperation fine accepted by City only on proviso it is publicly stated by PL why given, and not a sign of guilt.
I personally feel city are now as important to PL as tge red tops given our growth and status.

This. Isn't there a chance that at the end of it all the PL can proudly announce that after thorough investigations it has been shown that the best team in the PL have been totally legit?

Maybe it would be good for the PL? Especially as La Liga is currently in danger of falling apart.

 

[CC1]

THE A

So my point is valid in that

1) The High Court ruled on the competency of the PL Arbitration panel and not making an order to disclose documents.

2) We have absolutely no idea if Man City supplied the information a) requested by the PL and b) confirmed as being “ appropriate “ by the arbitration panel

As I say it would opening up all sorts of problems if they still flatly refused to supply any and everything that the arbitration panel agreed was relevant

Zzzzzzzzzzzz. You just repeat what you’ve read on here; add a bit of your own speculation & off you go again

Nothing new