PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[halfcenturyup]

No and also, the FA aren’t a party in the dispute.

He was using the abbreviation FA for Fucking Arseholes to describe the PL.

 

[bmfc95]

My memory may be failing me here but I am sure I read on this thread some time ago that the final decision couldn't be appealed to the High Court? Times article concludes it can do and says City are prepared to go to the Supreme court

Stefan touched on this in the tweet. If you're applying rules retrospectively I think there is a case for the high court to get involved (because it would be an issue with the procedure/process) but the facts/evidence whether or not we broke the rules isn't a job for the high court.

 

[Grassland Blue]

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.

What about the dippers and their invisible stadium?

 

[Ducado]

Generally rules and laws are not applied retrospectively, for example Building regulations with the exception of rule changes that have clear safety or environmental implications even then there is a normal grace period, it's against natural justice to charge someone for breaking a rule or law that did not exist at the time, like retrospectively charging people for not wearing seatbelts before the rule came in making them mandatory

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

Once bitten and all that?

Remember when Uefa said we could discount wages prior to 2010 for FFP and then decided to change the rules and factor them in so we were fucked.

Another example of Premier League trying to cover all the bases and having studied the CAS proceedings.

 

[MCFC1993]

Generally rules and laws are not applied retrospectively, for example Building regulations with the exception of rule changes that have clear safety or environmental implications even then there is a normal grace period, it's against natural justice to charge someone for breaking a rule or law that did not exist at the time, like retrospectively charging people for not wearing seatbelts before the rule came in making them mandatory

This appears to be a rule brought in to request access to information. Clubs now have to share more information with the Premier League due to this rule.

They're then using to rule to request information prior to the rules inception.

As you mention in your example I think the same should apply here.

The rule should only be valid for information after the rules inception. - I imagine this point is going to be argued by both sides in court.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

Stefan touched on this in the tweet. If you're applying rules retrospectively I think there is a case for the high court to get involved (because it would be an issue with the procedure/process) but the facts/evidence whether or not we broke the rules isn't a job for the high court.

Also an explanation why we have not given them access to documents they legally don't need to see.

 

[Newman Noggs]

I wonder if those individuals who claim our objection to Rosen is, somehow, unjustified would be as happy with the process if Rosen was a committed City fan.

 

[Sir peace frog]

you are driving down a road which is 40 mph limit at 39 mph, the following month they change the speed limit to 30mph and send you a ticket for last months driving "offence"

how can that be right ?

 

[manimanc]

While that would be his aim,he'll bottle it at the last minute.

Ha ha love it.