PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Rory Bluelow]

Exactly! The way I see it city are challenging many aspects of the charges including the appointment of the individual.. which I thought was because he already has a role in the PL, not because he’s an arsenal fan

The media are going with the arsenal fan angle to undermine our case and make us look petty.. and if you look at the response on Twitter etc it’s worked a treat as it’s convinced multitudes of morons that we’re more guilty than ever

Spot on in my view.

 

[SebastianBlue]

Well surely going of our logic that supposedly we want a different barrister because he's an arsenal fan when our lawyer is one is stupid isn't it? I'd say its quite a relevant point of discussion to be had.

No, it isn’t, because one person is being paid not to be fair and impartial to all parties, and one has been appointed to be fair and impartial to all parties.

You are trying to create a false equivalency.

The point remains nonsensical.

 

[Bluemoonadam]

The ‘Arsenal Fan’ line is simply an attempt to rubbish a series of challenges we’ve put to this case.

Rosen is actually a member at Arsenal, which is a little more than just being an average fan - and we’re questioning his impartiality as an active member of an organisation we know has historically played a central role in trying to get us removed from the League.

But this is just a small part of the picture, intended to demonstrate the entire case is a poorly constructed, unprofessional shambles.

The far more concerning challenge for the PL (which clearly none of the MSN are remotely interested in leading with) is the one around being charged against a set of rules that weren’t in place at the time of the alleged ‘infringements’ - which if supported, could lead to a number of the charges being dismissed out of hand.

But despite the implied pettiness from the MSN around our defence resting on the fact we’re not happy Rosen is an Arsenal fan, this is standard legal practice - to undermine the rigour and impartiality of a case (and those behind it), thereby supporting any subsequent arguments we make on the actual substance - whilst seeding the idea that the opposite side can’t be trusted.

That makes alot more sense now cheers for clearing it up.

 

[moomba]

I'm sure I read that the Arsenal barrister has an existing role within the PL organization, which is the reason we're objecting to his appointment, not because he's an Arsenal fan

Much more likely. Possible he was even involved in the initial investigation?

 

[manimanc]

do we have any idea for the potential timeline for all of this?
Do you think it is likely if we are found non guilty of these charges we go after some of these knobs for defamation or libel?

2025.

 

[coolcity]

The far more concerning challenge for the PL (which clearly none of the MSN are remotely interested in leading with) is the one around being charged against a set of rules that weren’t in place at the time of the alleged ‘infringements’ - which if supported, could lead to a number of the charges being dismissed out of hand...

If we're being charged based on rules that didn't exist at the time of the alleged offence, that's nothing less than astonishing. Can you point me in the direction of any further information on this please?

 

[Pablo ZZZ Peroni]

It's not "115 charges" though. It's basically 5, but which cover a number of related rules over multiple years.

Charge 1 is about failure to provide accounts that give a true and fair view of the club's financial position relating to revenue and operating costs. This covers 50 combinations of rules/years.

Charge 2 covers failing to disclose player and manager remuneration. This covers 24 combinations of rules/years, 6 for manager remuneration and 18 for player remuneration.

Charge 3 covers failure to comply with UEFA's FFP. This covers 5 combinations of rules/years.

Charge 4 covers failure to comply with the PL's own Profit & Sustainability rules. This covers 6 combinations of rule/years.

Charge 5 covers non-cooperation. This covers 30 combinations of rules/years.

I guess it's possible that we could be found to have broken some rules under heading 1 in some years and not to have broken other rules in other years. But I doubt it. It's possible we could be found guilty of breaching the rules on player remuneration but not manager remuneration. But I very much doubt that we'll be found guilty of breaching some of the player remuneration in one or more years but not guilty in others.

Charge 1 looks very much like Charge 2 plus sponsorship agreements. I've said before that the PL will, in my view, struggle to land the sponsorship stuff, as did UEFA. Therefore in relation to financial offences it's mostly down to charge 2, I reckon.

If we're found not to have breached any of the rules in headings 1 or 2 in any of the years, then I'm 99% certain both 3 and 4 are both irrelevant, and the charges will fail by default.

The non-cooperation charges are probably the ones most likely to succeed, if any do. That doesn't mean I think they are likely to succeed but, like at CAS, are probably where we're in a comparatively weak position (although I think the issue of cooperation went to court, after which I assume we complied with any ruling).

While it's difficult to be confident without knowing the substance of the charges, I'd say it's unlikely we'll be found guilty of, say, 60 but not the other 55.

Just to clarify the last para, are you saying:
confident on about 55 and "unlikely guilty" on 60?

I appreciate this is a very rough estimate.

 

[One Fan Clapping]

2025.

Tonight?

 

[SilverFox2]

What ? We're not the ones responsible for devising the rules, investigating, bringing charges and judging the case. That's where the impartiality should be.

How about our owner is an RM supporter.

 

[Pablo ZZZ Peroni]

The ‘Arsenal Fan’ line is simply an attempt to rubbish a series of challenges we’ve put to this case.

Rosen is actually a member at Arsenal, which is a little more than just being an average fan - and we’re questioning his impartiality as an active member of an organisation we know has historically played a central role in trying to get us removed from the League.

But this is just a small part of the picture, intended to demonstrate the entire case is a poorly constructed, unprofessional shambles.

The far more concerning challenge for the PL (which clearly none of the MSN are remotely interested in leading with) is the one around being charged against a set of rules that weren’t in place at the time of the alleged ‘infringements’ - which if supported, could lead to a number of the charges being dismissed out of hand.

But despite the implied pettiness from the MSN around our defence resting on the fact we’re not happy Rosen is an Arsenal fan, this is standard legal practice - to undermine the rigour and impartiality of a case (and those behind it), thereby supporting any subsequent arguments we make on the actual substance - whilst seeding the idea that the opposite side can’t be trusted.

1. The dropped line in the Times article that we are appealing because Rosen is an Arsenal fan will be bollocks. It is a deliberate clickbait ruse. Last time round the the court kicked-out in no uncertain times our questioning of potential bias.

2. The rule change is to do with disclosure ie the PL have introdcued wider rules about what we are supposed to disclose in response to their requests. City, rightly, say it should be on the original rules.

All IMO.