PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[halfcenturyup]

I don’t know what you have quoted - I think it’s a summary of the charges - but to see if we are in breach of the regulations you have to look at the regulations themselves. The wording you quote may not reflect the regulations in place at various times. It may be a summary that reflects the fact that different wording has appeared in the regulations from time to time. I have neither the time nor the inclination to go back and check.

Assuming the wording is precisely as per that quote, there is a principle that regulations should be construed in a way that does not produce absurd results. I would read that wording as requiring that the basic information must be accurate - so the raw data must be correct - but that clubs are (like companies) afforded a certain amount of leeway as to how they present that, subject to the overarching requirement that the accounts provide a true and fair view. So for instance if a club sells a player for £60m with the payment to come over three years, with a£10m bonus if they win the league, they could treat the whole £60m as a receivable in year one, or they could spread it over the three years that it will actually be paid, but they can’t treat the £10m as actually payable until the purchasing club wins the league.

Thanks for that, appreciate your reply. I think that part of the statement on alleged breaches is just badly worded. "Financial information accurate enough to show a true and fair view" would be better, imho. Or don't mention accurate at all.

Not really important, except that, together with the errors in quoting the right regulations, it doesn't fill me with much confidence in their competence.

I will not highlight the error in your example out of respect for lawyer/ accountant congeniality. :)

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

You’re working on the assumption the PL itself had any choice whether to bring charges. The PL actions are dictated by Arsenal, United, Spurs, Liverpool et al.

It was those clubs who decided to bring charges against city not the PL and it shouldn’t come as any surprise as they had nothing to lose by doing it.

Case comes to nothing = city’s reputation is damaged.
Case is proven = city are sanctioned.

It' s a great point. We have no idea of the decision-making process which led to the investigation into City. The PL is a private company where the clubs are the only shareholders. According to the PL website major financial decisions are made at shareholders' meeetings where each club gets a single vote. But a decision based on legal advice involving commercial confidentiality would presumably have to be signed off separately by Richard Masters and the Board Directors. It would be totally unethical for our commercial rivals to have any say in this matter so it must have been kept out of the shareholders' meeting.
But we also don't know how much influence the bigger clubs like LFC, MUFC, Arsenal, Spurs, have on Masters. It has been reported (and not denied) that Directors of MUFC and LFC were allowed to interview Masters for the job as part of some sort of vetting process. This suggests that LFC and MUFC have undue influence on Masters as CEO and that the entire PL Governance structure is flawed.

 

[Zubrman]

It is also worth remembering that the British media's influence is diminishing exponentially on a daily basis. Less and people read their shite; on-line or actual paper sales.

Who cares what they write?

 

[mancboy]

It' s a great point. We have no idea of the decision-making process which led to the investigation into City. The PL is a private company where the clubs are the only shareholders. According to the PL website major financial decisions are made at shareholders' meeetings where each club gets a single vote. But a decision based on legal advice involving commercial confidentiality would presumably have to be signed off separately by Richard Masters and the Board Directors. It would be totally unethical for our commercial rivals to have any say in this matter so it must have been kept out of the shareholders' meeting.
But we also don't know how much influence the bigger clubs like LFC, MUFC, Arsenal, Spurs, have on Masters. It has been reported (and not denied) that Directors of MUFC and LFC were allowed to interview Masters for the job as part of some sort of vetting process. This suggests that LFC and MUFC have undue influence on Masters as CEO and that the entire PL Governance structure is flawed.

And im sure this point will be vehemently argued at our supposed trial, as with most things these clubs, they are just upset at city being better than them in every facet of their business and we will be better here too.

 

[melrose40yarder]

It' s a great point. We have no idea of the decision-making process which led to the investigation into City. The PL is a private company where the clubs are the only shareholders. According to the PL website major financial decisions are made at shareholders' meeetings where each club gets a single vote. But a decision based on legal advice involving commercial confidentiality would presumably have to be signed off separately by Richard Masters and the Board Directors. It would be totally unethical for our commercial rivals to have any say in this matter so it must have been kept out of the shareholders' meeting.
But we also don't know how much influence the bigger clubs like LFC, MUFC, Arsenal, Spurs, have on Masters. It has been reported (and not denied) that Directors of MUFC and LFC were allowed to interview Masters for the job as part of some sort of vetting process. This suggests that LFC and MUFC have undue influence on Masters as CEO and that the entire PL Governance structure is flawed.

Big clubs like Spurs and thats where the argument is flawed they have never been a big club apart from the early 60s and then early 80s.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

And im sure this point will be vehemently argued at our supposed trial, as with most things these clubs, they are just upset at city being better than them in every facet of their business and we will be better here too.

Members of a so-called independent panel appointed by the PL will not want to damage their personal reputations and future career prospects by being seen to be part of what is really just a kangaroo court. The political dimension is also important. It was clear at the Commons Select Committee into the superleague fiasco that both Tory and Labour MPs do not trust the PL, especially Masters, and have no confidence in its role as a regulator. Masters and his pals have really boxed themselves into a corner. This is an existential crisis for the PL and there must be lots of pressure coming from other clubs. Not all of them are fans of the LFC and MUFC Directors.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

Big clubs like Spurs and thats where the argument is flawed they have never been a big club apart from the early 60s and then early 80s.

Levy seems to have disproportionate influence though.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Levy seems to have disproportionate influence though.

It's seems to extend well in excess of what might be expected from the American Football ground he had built.

 

[Tim of the Oak]

I get the emotion from all fellow citizens and it’s justified. However, I just can’t see our club taking this without clear evidence and the PL would be fools to try to prosecute without concrete evidence, not circumstantial. Monetary fines and penalties that effect business viability without true legal grounding will be fought in the courts by our club, regardless of what the PL and any in house panel wants to happen.

Can you really see us taking it on the chin if we feel it’s rigged?

We’ve got some of the smartest minds in football / business and they’ll take this all the way, and when / if it does go legal - only the law matters.

what I've said has nothing to do with "taking it on the chin". We will probably have to do even better than we did at CAS because the Prem have clearly gone for the jugular with us.

We don't know what the outcome will be. We are paying for the best lawyers but are facing a biased rather than independent committee.

 

[Chris in London]

Thanks for that, appreciate your reply. I think that part of the statement on alleged breaches is just badly worded. "Financial information accurate enough to show a true and fair view" would be better, imho. Or don't mention accurate at all.

Not really important, except that, together with the errors in quoting the right regulations, it doesn't fill me with much confidence in their competence.

I will not highlight the error in your example out of respect for lawyer/ accountant congeniality. :)

what error?