PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

mancboy said:
If we are convicted and its a big if, they are suggesting fraud and after that it becomes a legal matter, if true people will go to jail we arent talking about points deductions and if not we are talking slander on a massive scale from the premier league, i thoroughly believe that the pl have dug themselves into a hole that they are desperately trying to climb out of and they have no clue how to do so.
Click to expand...
Agree , the Premier league will regret the Everton punishment , they have already opened a can of worms with at least five clubs claiming compensation , if Chelsea and ourselves suffer a similar fate there will be a dozen other clubs with the Dippers at the head of the queue claimng , we know how scousers like a bit of "compo".
The Everton decision will reduced to a fine and transfer ban at most the Premier league will be reversing quicker than an Italian WW2 tank.
 
give it to gordon said:
It's all about to implode, the pl is eating itself just as the American owners wanted.
The fans of these American clubs are to think to see what's happening.

Bloody hell I even got called a cheat when filling my car up at the petrol station last night. All I was doing was queuing up to pay ! In my City jacket.

I hope it doesnt get to the stage were I feel unsafe wearing my City gear. The way the press/media are stirring it up, it could to that.
Click to expand...
tbh mate any knuckle dragger who calls you a cheat at a petrol station for having a city jacket is very unlikely to be able to read so the press wont stir them up.
 
Paladin said:
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.
Click to expand...
It's like the twisted court of Judge Nutmeg!

"Spin, spin, spin, the wheel of justice! See how fast the bastard turns!"

 
hongkongblue said:
I am a 'legal eagle' with experience of non-judicial legal proceedings like these proceedings.

In any well-regulated legal environment rules of procedure normally exist before proceedings begin. These tell the parties what are their rights and obligations at the outset.

Normally, when proceedings begin a clock starts to tick. There will be a timetable for the party alleging misconduct to frame its charges, amend them if necessary,
Click to expand...
My reply is incomplete. The full answer should continue as follows.

When the charges are in proper form, the party alleging misconduct should disclose its supporting evidence. The tactical burden shifts to the other side when the charges have been finalised, and all the evidence has been disclosed. The other side may then respond and, if necessary, call evidence in rebuttal. The burden of proving remains on the party alleging misconduct throughout. The case will only be established if, at the end of the hearing, the evidence shows that the allegations are likely true on the balance of probabilities, i.e. guilt is more likely than not.

The principles I describe above are based on notions of simple fairness. Without rules that modify them, the common law will require their application.

The problem with the current proceedings is that they have, as I understand it, been framed in such a way as to exclude a review by a judge for procedural irregularities and unfairness. The club will have to trust its vastly experienced team of lawyers to see that the proceedings conform to these basics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.