PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Ducado]

I see Leeds, Forest and few others clubs are threatening lawsuits of £300m against the Premier League if Everton stay up and ignored spending rules.

Seems like something we could expect also.

In my experience threatening and actually filing a case are two different things

 

[Claytop]

So we're challenging charges raised against us prior to PL rule changes.

Is this because the new rules are being applied retrospectively?

So read the article and that's what it sounds like, no issue with that challenge really. The one about him being an Arsenal fan seems a bit much, akin to what we've posted on here. You'd hope regardless they would be impartial.

 

[ganganvince]

Appealing prior to a adjudication doesn't sound like a legit process and more likely petty minded inaccurate shite journalism. Surely the process would be adjudication - disseminate - outcome - appeal

Reads more like charges to be dismissed prior to adjudication due to process.

 

[Eds]

So we qualify for the final and this report suddenly drops, mmm.

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

It's because the Prem have changed the rules on this recently, no?

Club allegiance factor.

So did we challenge Rosen’s appointment in light of this club allegiance factor - which I must confess I’d never heard of - or because of our interactions with him in the intervening 3 months. Can’t say it fills me with glad tidings given our claims to have irrefutable evidence

 

[richards30]

But if we are as innocent as we say we are and have the evidence to prove it then why worry who judges the case?

 

[Newman Noggs]

You'd hope regardless they would be impartial.

You would but, then again, the appointment of referees is controlled according to who they support in case it influences their decision making and yet they think it's okay for an Arsenal supporter to control disciplinary proceedings against a rival club ?

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

Having read it, it's a fluff piece, piggyback on last night.

Probably had it in the can for a few days.

Basically us challenging the legality of when some many of the charges can even be considered.

I sense everything up to 2018 is being argued as not applicable due to the rule changes.

Would also explain why we changed our image rights vehicle from 2018.

The Arsenal barrister is just a headline.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Sort of sounds like city are accusing the PL of applying the current rules (which are different) to our past conduct rather than applying the rules at the time to the conduct. I could be reading this wrong mind

That seems to be one issue. No lawyer but I would imagine it's a pretty normal legal principle that changes can't be applied retrospectively. At least, it can open up accusations of bias and unfair treatment.

On the KC, I said at the time it was stupid of the PL to appoint an Arsenal season ticket holder. It's not really about him being biased, it's about opening the process to the accusation of bias. Stupid to give the opportunity for an additional 6 months delay and millions of pounds more costs when they could have chosen someone else. Even appointing him because he is their "chosen" KC who has represented them before opens up accusations of bias from continued appointment. Surprised if City really go that route, but stupid mistake by the PL.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

So we're challenging charges raised against us prior to PL rule changes.

Is this because the new rules are being applied retrospectively?

It looks like it.