PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[The Stockport Iniesta]

26,000 loyalty points, but dare I suggest that rather than hide behind the bland "we'll come good in the end" City and Khaldoon could have handled this on the front foot?

A good lawyer will always tell you to keep your mouth shut until it's over.

 

[Tommy_Catons_Perm]

Following on from the post from @acton28.blog detailing the charges, I've tried to summarise them below.

Some of these charges are quite ridiculous, and their inclusion can only be for the effect of making City look bad. They are deliberately and unnecessarily vindictive. Let’s have a look at them in more detail.

9 charges (2009/10 to 2017/18) that “In all matters and transactions relating to the League each Club shall behave towards each other Club and the League with the utmost good faith.” I can’t think of anything specific we might have done relating to this, so the PL must be saying that by breaking the other rules, we have not acted in good faith to them or other clubs.

Funny that they didn’t charge Liverpool under this rule, when they found out they had hacked in to our scouting databases in 2013. The PL said in response to their decision not to take action against Liverpool, “This is due to a number of factors including the age of the alleged concerns and the settlement agreed by the two clubs involved.” So, the age of the alleged concerns applies in one case but not the other?

Also, nine Premier League clubs (Arsenal, Burnley, Chelsea, Leicester, Liverpool, Man Utd, Newcastle, Spurs and Wolves) wrote to CAS asking them not to lift Manchester City's European ban. This seems to me very much like acting in bad faith towards another PL club, and a breach of the same rule. But none of them were charged.

40 charges under different rules in each season from 2009/10 to 2017/18, but essentially are:

- Company accounts to be registered with Companies House and the PL by 1 March.

- Submission of interim accounts to the League, if annual accounts end before 30 November in current season.

- UEFA applicant clubs to provide to Premier League upon request, future financial information including P&L and cash flow.

- Requirement to notify PL of changes in circumstances that might affect finances.

1 charge in 2009/10 relating to ticket sales to visiting clubs. Quite what they suspect us of doing, and why it has taken so long to come to light, and why it doesn’t fall within the Liverpool “age of the alleged concerns” precedent, I can only speculate on. My guess is it’s a witch hunt. I wonder how many other clubs have been investigated for ticketing irregularities back in 2009.

8 charges between 2009/10 and 2012/13 relating to manager remuneration - the Mancini contract allegations?

12 charges between 2010/11 and 2015/16 relating to player remuneration. Could this be the image rights issue?

5 charges of failing to comply with UEFA regulations, in the years from 2013/14 to 2017/18. In failing UEFA FFP, United broke this same rule recently, but they haven’t been charged by the PL yet.

25 cases of failing Profitability and Sustainability rules, from 2015/16 to 2017/18. I would say from a layman’s POV, this is really one rule, split out into nine separate clauses (eight in two of the years). But rather than saying we have allegedly broken Profitability and Sustainability rules in three seasons, it looks better for them to count it as 25. (Acting in good faith towards a member club?)

30 accusations amounting to failure to cooperate in respect of seasons 2018/19 to 2022/23, citing six rules in each season.

I’ve checked my figures over a few times using https://www.premierleague.com/news/3045970 as a reference. It looks a lot like 130 charges to me, so I suppose the PL have generously rounded it down, or they can’t count.

Wow. Good work Sir.

 

[bluwes]

Following on from the post from @acton28.blog detailing the charges, I've tried to summarise them below.

Some of these charges are quite ridiculous, and their inclusion can only be for the effect of making City look bad. They are deliberately and unnecessarily vindictive. Let’s have a look at them in more detail.

9 charges (2009/10 to 2017/18) that “In all matters and transactions relating to the League each Club shall behave towards each other Club and the League with the utmost good faith.” I can’t think of anything specific we might have done relating to this, so the PL must be saying that by breaking the other rules, we have not acted in good faith to them or other clubs.

Funny that they didn’t charge Liverpool under this rule, when they found out they had hacked in to our scouting databases in 2013. The PL said in response to their decision not to take action against Liverpool, “This is due to a number of factors including the age of the alleged concerns and the settlement agreed by the two clubs involved.” So, the age of the alleged concerns applies in one case but not the other?

Also, nine Premier League clubs (Arsenal, Burnley, Chelsea, Leicester, Liverpool, Man Utd, Newcastle, Spurs and Wolves) wrote to CAS asking them not to lift Manchester City's European ban. This seems to me very much like acting in bad faith towards another PL club, and a breach of the same rule. But none of them were charged.

40 charges under different rules in each season from 2009/10 to 2017/18, but essentially are:

- Company accounts to be registered with Companies House and the PL by 1 March.

- Submission of interim accounts to the League, if annual accounts end before 30 November in current season.

- UEFA applicant clubs to provide to Premier League upon request, future financial information including P&L and cash flow.

- Requirement to notify PL of changes in circumstances that might affect finances.

1 charge in 2009/10 relating to ticket sales to visiting clubs. Quite what they suspect us of doing, and why it has taken so long to come to light, and why it doesn’t fall within the Liverpool “age of the alleged concerns” precedent, I can only speculate on. My guess is it’s a witch hunt. I wonder how many other clubs have been investigated for ticketing irregularities back in 2009.

8 charges between 2009/10 and 2012/13 relating to manager remuneration - the Mancini contract allegations?

12 charges between 2010/11 and 2015/16 relating to player remuneration. Could this be the image rights issue?

5 charges of failing to comply with UEFA regulations, in the years from 2013/14 to 2017/18. In failing UEFA FFP, United broke this same rule recently, but they haven’t been charged by the PL yet.

25 cases of failing Profitability and Sustainability rules, from 2015/16 to 2017/18. I would say from a layman’s POV, this is really one rule, split out into nine separate clauses (eight in two of the years). But rather than saying we have allegedly broken Profitability and Sustainability rules in three seasons, it looks better for them to count it as 25. (Acting in good faith towards a member club?)

30 accusations amounting to failure to cooperate in respect of seasons 2018/19 to 2022/23, citing six rules in each season.

I’ve checked my figures over a few times using https://www.premierleague.com/news/3045970 as a reference. It looks a lot like 130 charges to me, so I suppose the PL have generously rounded it down, or they can’t count.

Bloody hell I need to read that tomorrow , too many beers tonight

 

[wolviedinho]

Reading this thread these last few days has shown that this forum has a number of Liverpool and United fans mascarading as blues. And they’re in here deliberately attempting to wind blues up.

Im a huge free speech advocate normally, except where the club I love are concerned, so I am asking the mod team to please comb through the last 100 pages or so and issue some forum bans.
Please.

Oppostikn fans can wind us up on any thread they like except this one. This one is dealing with an existential threat to the club and we shouldn’t be allowing barely concealed gloating and deliberate inflammatory posting, especially when disguised as coming from City fans, often in the style of “IF we are guilty then does that mean…etc etc”.

Get rid of them please mods, this is a very emotive and important thread.

Quickly goes through posts checking for “ifs” -:)

Well said mate. Find and destroy the enemy.

Hey Premier, leave our club alone!

 

[I'm Blue]

Following on from the post from @acton28.blog detailing the charges, I've tried to summarise them below.

Some of these charges are quite ridiculous, and their inclusion can only be for the effect of making City look bad. They are deliberately and unnecessarily vindictive. Let’s have a look at them in more detail.

9 charges (2009/10 to 2017/18) that “In all matters and transactions relating to the League each Club shall behave towards each other Club and the League with the utmost good faith.” I can’t think of anything specific we might have done relating to this, so the PL must be saying that by breaking the other rules, we have not acted in good faith to them or other clubs.

Funny that they didn’t charge Liverpool under this rule, when they found out they had hacked in to our scouting databases in 2013. The PL said in response to their decision not to take action against Liverpool, “This is due to a number of factors including the age of the alleged concerns and the settlement agreed by the two clubs involved.” So, the age of the alleged concerns applies in one case but not the other?

Also, nine Premier League clubs (Arsenal, Burnley, Chelsea, Leicester, Liverpool, Man Utd, Newcastle, Spurs and Wolves) wrote to CAS asking them not to lift Manchester City's European ban. This seems to me very much like acting in bad faith towards another PL club, and a breach of the same rule. But none of them were charged.

40 charges under different rules in each season from 2009/10 to 2017/18, but essentially are:

- Company accounts to be registered with Companies House and the PL by 1 March.

- Submission of interim accounts to the League, if annual accounts end before 30 November in current season.

- UEFA applicant clubs to provide to Premier League upon request, future financial information including P&L and cash flow.

- Requirement to notify PL of changes in circumstances that might affect finances.

1 charge in 2009/10 relating to ticket sales to visiting clubs. Quite what they suspect us of doing, and why it has taken so long to come to light, and why it doesn’t fall within the Liverpool “age of the alleged concerns” precedent, I can only speculate on. My guess is it’s a witch hunt. I wonder how many other clubs have been investigated for ticketing irregularities back in 2009.

8 charges between 2009/10 and 2012/13 relating to manager remuneration - the Mancini contract allegations?

12 charges between 2010/11 and 2015/16 relating to player remuneration. Could this be the image rights issue?

5 charges of failing to comply with UEFA regulations, in the years from 2013/14 to 2017/18. In failing UEFA FFP, United broke this same rule recently, but they haven’t been charged by the PL yet.


25 cases of failing Profitability and Sustainability rules, from 2015/16 to 2017/18. I would say from a layman’s POV, this is really one rule, split out into nine separate clauses (eight in two of the years). But rather than saying we have allegedly broken Profitability and Sustainability rules in three seasons, it looks better for them to count it as 25. (Acting in good faith towards a member club?)
30 accusations amounting to failure to cooperate in respect of seasons 2018/19 to 2022/23, citing six rules in each season.

I’ve checked my figures over a few times using https://www.premierleague.com/news/3045970 as a reference. It looks a lot like 130 charges to me, so I suppose the PL have generously rounded it down, or they can’t count.

I do wonder how the hell Everton only have one charge then?
Reading some of the above means..
Ffp is over 3 seasons - so why aren't they charged on 3 separate seasons like we are?
Where's the subsection charges?
They failed FFP so their behaviour towards other clubs is questionable, if ours is.
Profitability and Sustainability?
Fucking witch hunting cunts.

 

[eyalluvitt]

We can never win, either we got what we deserved or our expensive lawyers paid off the PL

 

[nmc]

Which begs the question, why did the PL hand out these charges so willy nilly.
Surely they didn't think we'd just say "ok guv, it's a fair cop".
The PL's stance on all this makes no sense to me

The Red shirts pushed UEFA into charging us and finding us guilty with no substantive evidence - I guess the PL have been pushed down the same road by the same desperate people.

 

[Paladin]

So with Everton they detailed the exact amount failed by to justify punishment. With the United ffp failure they mentioned no figures and something about a small loss! Talk about fudging it!

UEFA passed judgement on United. The PL passed judgement on Everton. Two different bodies with two different methods.

You can read all UEFA's judgements here. https://www.uefa.com/insideuefa/protecting-the-game/club-financial-controlling-body/cases/

Chelsea's is there, Wolves, Hull City, and ours from 2014. All are there, in the public domain for anyone to see. Oh, except United's. Theirs isn't available, for some reason. Probably just an oversight.

 

[Holcombe bloo]

UEFA passed judgement on United. The PL passed judgement on Everton. Two different bodies with two different methods.

You can read all UEFA's judgements here. https://www.uefa.com/insideuefa/protecting-the-game/club-financial-controlling-body/cases/

Chelsea's is there, Wolves, Hull City, and ours from 2014. All are there, in the public domain for anyone to see. Oh, except United's. Theirs isn't available, for some reason. Probably just an oversight.

Funny that isn’t it!

 

[The Stockport Iniesta]

We can never win, either we got what we deserved or our expensive lawyers paid off the PL

We can win, and that's by not losing. As for what anyone else says, seriously, who gives a fuck.