PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[cheekybids]

Same here, I can live with that, in fact its preferable.

They're gonna call us cheats no matter what, no matter. We might as well have the fine which makes them even more distraught.

It’s better than being called a murderer.

 

[halfcenturyup]

It’s better than being called a murderer.

Aaargh. Tragedy shaming. Delete immediately.

 

[hello]

It's not a case of a procedural failure. What you need to show is that it's a serious irregularity based on the panel's failure to exercise its duty to be fair and impartial in considering the evidence. And it's a very high bar, as you in effect would need to show that the panel came to a conclusion that a reasonable panel, acting fairly, couldn't have reached.

There'd therefore be a risk that an appeal by City on those grounds would fail. It's not an easy thing to prove to that level.

I agree its a difficult thing to prove for 99.99% of panels, but I can't think of any reasonable panel ignoring auditor statements, CAS judgements whilst leaking every stage to the press. Therefore I see the panel either acting professionally from now on in which case we almost certainly end up guilty or partially guilty of the non cooperation charges or we take it to court on appeal.

 

[level_two]

‘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.

An extreme scenario but I assume the PL could do this by relegating us automatically to the Championship and then only send two down on points

Not that I think this will be an outcome anyway

 

[flb]

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

Rolf Harris has just thrown a seven

 

[flb]

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.

I just get the feeling that there is a time issue with this , I’d say the PL are under extreme pressure to get this resolved (probably due to the independent panel that is on the horizon) and City are just sitting on their hands saying , in our own time. The pressure very recently seems to have reached new heights - now is that because we tore Madrid a new arse hole ? Because we have won the league ? One thing is for sure - Pep, the team , and the senior management and owners seem very very calm about it - the ticking time bomb is the independent panel for me , there a few clubs absolutely shitting themselves about it , fire sale at old toilet , and the dippers pulling themselves off the market. We appear to be in no rush.

 

[bluwes]

Simon stone I think

It’s was Rob Harris. Man has a mental issue

 

[Coatigan]

You're pressing me for an answer that I can't give. There's obviously a strong argument that it can, but it doesn't mean that we could guarantee that, upon any appeal, he court would accept it as such.

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.

The PL as an institution and the individuals concerned would be highly embarrassed if its panel were to hand down a verdict in this case that we could then appeal on the grounds that they breached their duty of fairness and impartiality. Let's hope that's enough to keep them honest.

Let me make one thing very clear. I think he likelihood of an appeal to the court system is almost certainly a red herring. I'm simply been responding to the idea that the PL can be as unreasonable as it likes with no threat of recourse.

That's all, nothing more. I appreciate that people want as much comfort and reassurance as possible in these circumstances. It would be wrong of me to try and provide that save in the very narrow sense of the final sentence in my preceding paragraph.

That really is the only point I have argued before, i.e this idea that because it is 'private club' rules, anything goes and there is nothing that can be done to prevent it.

Thanks for the summaries, I imagine it can get annoying to a few when someone in the field says something that most take on, and one or two complete laymen question because it simply just doesn't seem to make sense. But then if it leads to pretty detailed clarifications like the little series of posts there..

 

[lust overlord]

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.

That last paragraph is,more or less,exactly what I think.
But for PL substitute most of the g14.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

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

It was 10 minutes after we completed the first ever domestic grand slam of four trophies. Rob Harris (then of AP) asked Pep a question relating to Roberto Mancini being paid "off books" in 2008....eleven years earlier..and eight years before Pep even joined us. He asked Pep if he had the same sort of arrangement for his pay. It was despicable by Harris who has never published a single shred of evidence for any wrongdoing by Pep. Nothing more than an attempt to smear Pep in public. One of the most unprofessional things I have ever seen from a so-called journalist.