PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[flb]

Is like to know what cheating actually is (in the eyes of the red media)..

If we get a fine = cheating?
Docked points = cheating?
Relegation = cheating?
I suspect nothing will still = cheating.

More importantly is there any way of linking the accusations to what the team are doing right now? I don't understand that link.

It's like the media have gone to this childish jealousy thing of just shouting cheats whilst having fingers in ears whenever we win anything.

So in future, will they be able to say we were cheating if we get a fine. Can we take them to court and shut them up.

Naive question probably.

This is all to do with the independent panel that’s “arriving” in my humble opinion.

 

[Paladin]

So, it appears from these reports, that proceedings have started, or are they about to start (if we're are indeed raising questions about the construction of the panel)?

Does that mean Pannick is already involved? And will they go through the charges one by one and either uphold them or eliminate them, or will the panel judge everything at the end?

 

[Metalartin]

"The Big 5" term predates the PL by some distance.

A phrase coined in the 70's and Swales was on a mission to make it 6 with us

That's news to me but I wasn't around. I've never been able to find any reference to "The Big 5" before the 80s. I've only seen "The big 5 of the 80s" mentioned in the media up to now.



For me it looks suspiciously like it was only ever PR hype in preparation of the PL(hence the secret meetings in the late 80s). The big sly 3 was the first legitimate claim to a clear gap(based on global fanbases, finances, as well as the extra CL places... yet top 4 only really became relevant for English football in 2002/03 ). If the big 5 hype did start in the 70s, then that would make it an even flimsier claim.

Considering it was United, Liverpool, Arsenal, Everton... And Spurs. City, Liverpool and Spurs starting the 70s level on major honours with comparable attendances. Spurs did have slightly more success in the 70s(finished that decade with a difference of 1 FA Cup and 1 ECWC) but they also didn't have one single title challenge there where City came runners up to Liverpool by just one point(financially doped Liverpool ;) ).

In the 80s Villa won a league title and a European cup and Everton at least won two league titles. Whereas Spurs literally bought some relevance in 80s but again... didn't really challenge for the league title once. How can anyone justify Spurs being bigger than Villa at that time? The attendances difference wasn't nearly enough to claim it. The European Cup win was a pretty big deal I imagine, on top of a Villa's already deep history in English football(as much as I dislike a lot of Villa fans, it has to be said).

Spurs just bought 2 extra FA Cups and 1 UEFA cup(worth no more than a ECWC) but broke the financial regulations of that era to do so(yes, they managed to break financial rules on transfers before FFP was even a thing)... The PL(new/separate league) saved them from a harsher punishment coming down on them in the 90s, when it all came to light... The FA wanted to dock 12points, but they won an appeal to pay a bigger fine. And there is Daniel Levy at Spurs acting like that club has ever truly been part of the elite or has any room to talk. Sorry but fuck Spurs.

Having looked into it, there doesn't seem to me that there is any legitimacy to there ever being a real big 5. The trophy counts of most of those names simply didn't justify it(the difference to clubs around them was way too small) and in terms of attendances there were many clubs around them with comparable avg attendances(City being one of them). Except that United had the largest attendances by far of any English club and Liverpool were in a league of their own on trophy counts by the mid 80s perhaps. That would make it a big 2 though.

 

[KS55]

The problem for City and us fans is that the narrative to our opponents is gospel, we're dammed if we win the case and dammed if we don't, it's in their back pocket everytime we do something brilliant or win another trophy. To them in their eyes we will be forever cheats even though deep down they know we haven't done anything more than have the temerity to challenge and beat the established elite. The red tops.

They don’t like it up them, as Corporal Jones used to say. If we had done nothing different but finished 5th every year, there would be none of this. As Thompson the dipper said: “They have stolen our CL place.”

 

[OrigamiNinja]

No - there is no universal right. The Premier League Rules set out what can and can't be challenged and how. There are very limited situations that could ever end up in the High Court. I've answered this earlier in this thread but even if City get an issue into Rule X (an appeal), then the appeal of an PL arbitration to the High Court is in limited circumstances pursuant to the Arbitration Act

It expressly says "Subject to the provisions of sections 67 to 71 of the Act, the award shall be final and binding on the parties and there shall be no right of appeal. There shall be no right of appeal on a point of law under section 69 of the Act." So that leaves s67,68,70 and 71 of the Arbitration Act as routes to appeal to the courts.

67 is substantive jurisdiction https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/23/section/67
68 is serious irregularity https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/23/section/68
70/71 are supplementary (basically process) provisions relating to 67 and 68

So, the ONLY realistic route to end up in the Courts is serious irregularity. It is almost definitely not ending up in the courts.

Serious irregularity means an irregularity of one or more of the following kinds which the court considers has caused or will cause substantial injustice to the applicant—

(a)failure by the tribunal to comply with section 33 (general duty of tribunal);

(b)the tribunal exceeding its powers (otherwise than by exceeding its substantive jurisdiction: see section 67);

(c)failure by the tribunal to conduct the proceedings in accordance with the procedure agreed by the parties;

(d)failure by the tribunal to deal with all the issues that were put to it;

(e)any arbitral or other institution or person vested by the parties with powers in relation to the proceedings or the award exceeding its powers;

(f)uncertainty or ambiguity as to the effect of the award;

(g)the award being obtained by fraud or the award or the way in which it was procured being contrary to public policy;

(h)failure to comply with the requirements as to the form of the award; or

(i)any irregularity in the conduct of the proceedings or in the award which is admitted by the tribunal or by any arbitral or other institution or person vested by the parties with powers in relation to the proceedings or the award.

Would attempting to charge the club of an offence that wasn’t an offence at the time not constitute a serious irregularity?

 

[Centurions]

So, it appears from these reports, that proceedings have started, or are they about to start (if we're are indeed raising questions about the construction of the panel)?

Does that mean Pannick is already involved? And will they go through the charges one by one and either uphold them or eliminate them, or will the panel judge everything at the end?

I might have skipped over something but the "questions" are over the guy who appoints the panel being an Arsenal member.

Edit: so presumably, no panel yet.

 

[Paladin]

I might have skipped over something but the "questions" are over the guy who appoints the panel being an Arsenal member.

Edit: so presumably, no panel yet.

Sorry, my misunderstanding. We are still in preliminary stages then.

 

[Centurions]

Sorry, my misunderstanding. We are still in preliminary stages then.

It sounds like City are trying to stop it getting out of that stage since the PL dropped their bombshell. Don't forget, City weren't officially advised of the charges until an hour or so (from memory) before the PL published their statement. I dare say it's been fairly busy behind doors.

 

[flb]

That's news to me but I wasn't around. I've never been able to find any reference to "The Big 5" before the 80s. I've only seen "The big 5 of the 80s" mentioned in the media up to now.



For me it looks suspiciously like it was only ever PR hype in preparation of the PL(hence the secret meetings in the late 80s). The big sly 3 was the first legitimate claim to a clear gap(based on global fanbases, finances, as well as the extra CL places... yet top 4 only really became relevant for English football in 2002/03 ). If the big 5 hype did start in the 70s, then that would make it an even flimsier claim.

Considering it was United, Liverpool, Arsenal, Everton... And Spurs. City, Liverpool and Spurs starting the 70s level on major honours with comparable attendances. Spurs did have slightly more success in the 70s(finished that decade with a difference of 1 FA Cup and 1 ECWC) but they also didn't have one single title challenge there where City came runners up to Liverpool by just one point(financially doped Liverpool ;) ).

In the 80s Villa won a league title and a European cup and Everton at least won two league titles. Whereas Spurs literally bought some relevance in 80s but again... didn't really challenge for the the league title once. How can anyone justify Spurs being bigger than Villa at that time? The attendances difference wasn't nearly enough to claim it. The European Cup win was a pretty big deal I imagine, on top of a Villa's already deep history in English football(as much as I dislike a lot of Villa fans, it has to be said).

Spurs just bought 2 extra FA Cups and 1 UEFA cup(worth no more than a ECWC) but broke the financial regulations of that era to do so(yes, they managed to break financial rules on transfers before FFP was even a thing)... The PL(new/separate league) saved them from a harsher punishment coming down on them in the 90s, when it all came to light... The FA wanted to dock 12points, but they won an appeal to pay a bigger fine. And there is Daniel Levy at Spurs acting like that club has ever truly been part of the elite or has any room to talk. Sorry but fuck Spurs.

Having looked into it, there doesn't seem to me that there is any legitimacy to there ever being a real big 5. The trophy counts of most of those names simply didn't justify it(the difference to clubs around them was way too small) and in terms of attendances there were many clubs around them with comparable avg attendances(City being one of them). Except that United had the largest attendances by far of any English club and Liverpool were in a league of their own on trophy counts by the mid 80s perhaps. That would make it a big 2 though.

You can throw Sunderland in to that mix , I think they were 2 titles behind United at that time , they were probably languishing in a different division like we were at that time , funny how you mention Villa though , as before they won the league in 80- the titanic was still afloat before they last won a title - there big success period was in the late 1800’s ,they had to level it up at the onset of the PL , and include two London teams - even back then the whole fucking process was bent.

 

[slbsn]

Would attempting to charge the club of an offence that wasn’t an offence at the time not constitute a serious irregularity?

No because it means serious irregularity in the PL appeal itself. But the article is not right - the rules themselves haven't changed materially and certainly not the key ones associated with the alleged breaches. The guidance detailed in the article doesn't even form part of the rules so the article has the wrong end of the stick there too. All that article seems to me to be mischief and a lot of wrong end of the stick and we should ignore it.