PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Dirty Harry]

I thought that UEFA's evidence at CAS on the main substantive point was laughable, frankly. But one of the panel was happy to find us guilty on that basis. Litigation always entails a risk.

Was about to highlight that point mate so glad you did, iirc, wasn’t he the one UEFA picked ?
If so, it makes you realise, even at something supposedly as ‘neutral’ as CAS, there’s a fine balance, where you can interpret things differently, hopefully anyway, we don’t need any of this and there can be no denying the quality of our evidence.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Thanks for explaining that clearly. It's reassuring to hear that they couldn't just impose some arbitrary penalty (say relegation to League Two) and that we'd just have to accept it with no legal recourse whatsoever.

That's why I asked the question tbh. Non-legal people need to be taken through this step by step so they can understand the implications before they freak out completely.

 

[mexico1970]

the fine would be ok imo but fuck the other clubs, who cares i certainly dont give a shit what they think and along with sections of the press and it would be fun to watch their piss boiling year after year as we collect trophy's

I welcome their pain, what you can't change you should openly mock, fuck 'em.

 

[Gogootz]

Who was the journalist Pep sorted out here.

Rob Harris, it was 10 minutes after lifting the fa cup iirc

 

[Chippy_boy]

There's 2,000+ pages here of which I have read perhaps 1% so forgive me if this has been debated previously. And I am neither a lawyer nor an accountant, so a layman in all respects. But here's my random musings, which maybe someone can make sense of ;-)

Clearly, financial accounting and especially in the context of global, complex company structures is complicated in itself. Layered upon that are complex rules and regulations, and opportunities - legal opportunities - to arrange affairs for particular gains, be they tax minimisation or what have you. To try to limit the extent to which auditing such accounts becomes a subjective exercise - which would be a dire situation with audit firms coming up with different views on the same set of books - a set of standard measures and tests are used, such as Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and International Accounting Standards (notably IAS24 in respect of related party transactions). Again, I am not an accountant but I gather these things exist and apply.

So CIty Football Group have filed various sets of accounts which have been scrutinised by independent auditors and signed off as fair and accurate representations. Surely, that in itself should knock on the head any suggestion of whether or not sponsor A or B is a related party or not - since objective definitions apply. And whether or not related party transactions are accounted for at fair value or not.

Ditto, details of salaries and other remunerations will surely be recorded in the accounts and duly signed off? So I am finding it hard to understand how the PL could assert such wide-spread rule-breaking?

Unless, unless, they are suggesting that we cooked the books and did not fairly and accurately respresent various items of income and expenditure? Which I guess is entirely possible. But would not such activity, not only in contravention of PL rules, actually be illegal? Surely knowingly filing inaccurate accounts is a criminal offence which could put City executives in jail, never mind something as trivial as PL sanctions.

Yes, scandals like Enron did happen, but that is why so many accounting rules and processes have been tightened up since. As a lowly employee, I am required to sign a form every quarter declaring (in terms) that I know of nothing dodgy going on and that the various contracts I have signed are above board with no side letters etc. For there to have been illicit payments off the books (for example) I imagine many people would have to be involved in what I think is ultimately criminal activity. I find it VERY hard to believe that this is the case.

To me, it seems much more likely that we have simply been very creative - in the fully legal sense - with our accounting, and that PL who are far from experts, are simply pissed off by it and desperate to find some way of harming us, when in fact none exists? I guess we will see in due course.

 

[Iassel]

Thanks for explaining that clearly. It's reassuring to hear that they couldn't just impose some arbitrary penalty (say relegation to League Two) and that we'd just have to accept it with no legal recourse whatsoever.

‘luckily’ a relegation has never been on the table - the Premier League do not have the authority to relegate City into a Football League competition, and obviously no FL club would accept City’s entry at 1 of their expense.

The only option would be to exclude City from the PL and then City would have to apply for re-entry to the football pyramid.

Obviously this is a non-starter.

 

[ayrshire_blue]

Is this panel anything similar to the AC Chamber which UEFA referred us to prior to CAS? If so, that's not exactly convincing. Hopefully they're nothing alike and a lot more professional here?

 

[Cassandra]

Was about to highlight that point mate so glad you did, iirc, wasn’t he the one UEFA picked ?
If so, it makes you realise, even at something supposedly as ‘neutral’ as CAS, there’s a fine balance, where you can interpret things differently, hopefully anyway, we don’t need any of this and there can be no denying the quality of our evidence.

But we are expected to believe that a panel chairman who is part of the premier league system and appointed by the premier league will be neutral?

 

[bluemanchester]

It's true that our only opportunity to have recourse to the court system lies under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996, which provides for the possibility of a challenge "on the ground of serious irregularity affecting the tribunal, the proceedings or the award" (see section 68(1)).

The lawyers on here have generally opined that this is extremely unlikely because it's very rare in practice and tends to involve fairly egregious conduct on the part of an arbitral body. To confer a right on a party to arbitration proceedings to appeal to the civil court system against a ruling other than in fairly exceptional circumstances would be inimical to the whole essence of arbitration, which is to avoid the courts.

However, it's worth noting that, under section 68(2)(a) of the 1996 Act, a "failure by the tribunal to comply with section 33" of the Act is a "serious irregularity" if it will "cause substantial injustice to the applicant".

Section 33 of the 1996 Act imposes a general duty on a tribunal to "act fairly and impartially as between the parties, giving each party a reasonable opportunity of putting his case and dealing with that of his opponent" (see section 33(1)(a)).

Under section 33(2), a tribunal must "comply with that general duty in conducting the arbitral proceedings, in its decisions on matters of procedure and evidence and in the exercise of all other powers conferred on it".

So there is legal protection for us in that. It would take exceptional circumstances for it to become relevant in our case, but it's not true to say that any decision, whatever the available evidence for it, would be fine as long as there's no actual procedural impropriety.

If a tribunal handed down an award that could be demonstrated to a court to be a decision that could not have been taken by a reasonable tribunal acting fairly based on the evidence presented, the court would uphold an appeal. It's a high bar and if the members of the panel act professionally it shouldn't apply, but you never know.

The PL's panel will be well aware that if they give us any scope to bring into play the possibility of an appeal under section 68, we'll be all over it. That's something that will hopefully keep them honest (or at least relatively so).

Thanks for posting that it is very informative. Maybe also this is why there are rumours about City making objections now about the formation of the panel. This could be the club taking steps to minimise the risk of having to take action after the hearing, if an impartial panel is formed now. The club seem to be saying, if the rumours are true, that the man forming the panel cannot be impartial if he is a member of one of the main protagonists against City. Just a side question, would he be allowed on a jury with similar connections to the prosecution team.

 

[uwe rosler 28]

We will get a fine for non cooperation again and the story will go on and on and on unfortunately.

Certain clubs will never let this die.

This time I just don't seeing us accepting a deal in this way it's either put up or shut up all or nothing any fines or charges against will be fought against. IMO