PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[KS55]

An excellent question and one for which I still don't have a satisfactory answer 8 months later, other than better evidence (which I think is very unlikely) or a poor process. I suppose we will see.

In another sphere we would be able to plead Autrefois acquit to many of the charges.

 

[halfcenturyup]

In another sphere we would be able to plead Autrefois acquit to many of the charges.

Précisement.

I had wondered if they thought they had to carry their investigation through to its conclusion once it had started (i.e. ignoring UEFA/CAS), but I maintain it would have been smarter to wait for the UEFA ruling / CAS settlement before starting the PL investigation, or at least taking the CAS ruling into account in the alleged breaches, but that just brings us back to poor process.

 

[nmc]

An excellent question and one for which I still don't have a satisfactory answer 8 months later, other than better evidence (which I think is very unlikely) or a poor process. I suppose we will see.

In the information vacuum that exists around these charges, and in the absence of any substance from the PL I’m beginning to wonder if it’s a case of us giving too much credibility and credence to our enemy. Gill and Parry et al forced a guilty verdict at the UEFA panel with limited evidence (and that’s being generous) - it’s not beyond the bounds of possibility that the same protagonists are driving forward again undeterred by their lack of evidence. As for Bird and Bird…. They’ll just be taking the money…

 

[halfcenturyup]

In the information vacuum that exists around these charges, and in the absence of any substance from the PL I’m beginning to wonder if it’s a case of us giving too much credibility and credence to our enemy. Gill and Parry et al forced a guilty verdict at the UEFA panel with limited evidence (and that’s being generous) - it’s not beyond the bounds of possibility that the same protagonists are driving forward again undeterred by their lack of evidence. As for Bird and Bird…. They’ll just be taking the money…

Had this discussion with @petrusha about 6 months ago. Lawyers can only advise their clients what to do. If the client wants to take other action, the lawyers have to go along with it. Or quit (I think that was the gist).

 

[Gary James]

This is an interesting article on BBC about LFC's owners. Obviously, it talks about City in several places (usual stuff) but the wider piece is about the problems LFC's owners are having in the States with Boston and over here. In essence they don't want to invest is the general point but when you read it you can't help but see that what they've achieved in the States (controlling the spending of rival owners) is exactly what they've tried here. In the piece it sort of suggests that's gone well in the States but it's a bit of a thorn over here. So I guess the point of what I'm saying is - why haven't other ambitious PL owners spotted this obvious business ploy of 'stop the others spending so that we don't have to!' Owners profiting from clubs is what it's about (and why not they're businesses after all) yet it's those investing that many in our media and rivals claim are wrong!

Glory and fury - Liverpool, Boston and a tale of two teams

Owner John Henry has ended title droughts on both sides of the Atlantic, but neither Liverpool or Boston Red Sox fans are entirely happy with the direction he is taking their teams.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Three_Hat-tricks]

If we are cleared of the charges then maybe we could get a certain smoothie maker as shirt sponsor.
View attachment 99971

Good idea :)

 

[nmc]

This is an interesting article on BBC about LFC's owners. Obviously, it talks about City in several places (usual stuff) but the wider piece is about the problems LFC's owners are having in the States with Boston and over here. In essence they don't want to invest is the general point but when you read it you can't help but see that what they've achieved in the States (controlling the spending of rival owners) is exactly what they've tried here. In the piece it sort of suggests that's gone well in the States but it's a bit of a thorn over here. So I guess the point of what I'm saying is - why haven't other ambitious PL owners spotted this obvious business ploy of 'stop the others spending so that we don't have to!' Owners profiting from clubs is what it's about (and why not they're businesses after all) yet it's those investing that many in our media and rivals claim are wrong!

Glory and fury - Liverpool, Boston and a tale of two teams

Owner John Henry has ended title droughts on both sides of the Atlantic, but neither Liverpool or Boston Red Sox fans are entirely happy with the direction he is taking their teams.

www.bbc.co.uk

Thought it was interesting that the BBC who mention allegations against City at every opportunity omitted to mention the numerous proven instances of cheating by Fenway Sports teams in MLB.

 

[Brewster's millions]

This is an interesting article on BBC about LFC's owners. Obviously, it talks about City in several places (usual stuff) but the wider piece is about the problems LFC's owners are having in the States with Boston and over here. In essence they don't want to invest is the general point but when you read it you can't help but see that what they've achieved in the States (controlling the spending of rival owners) is exactly what they've tried here. In the piece it sort of suggests that's gone well in the States but it's a bit of a thorn over here. So I guess the point of what I'm saying is - why haven't other ambitious PL owners spotted this obvious business ploy of 'stop the others spending so that we don't have to!' Owners profiting from clubs is what it's about (and why not they're businesses after all) yet it's those investing that many in our media and rivals claim are wrong!

Glory and fury - Liverpool, Boston and a tale of two teams

Owner John Henry has ended title droughts on both sides of the Atlantic, but neither Liverpool or Boston Red Sox fans are entirely happy with the direction he is taking their teams.

www.bbc.co.uk

What the likes of FSG want is to introduce a strict (stricter) regulatory framework around the PL, such that the oligopolistic structure of the current set of major clubs is protected, allowing the owners to receive stable and of course larger profits.

This would be more consistent with the franchise nature of US sports and FSG would no doubt argue that competition would flourish if spending levels were capped, but as you say the owners would be the only real benefactors here and there would be no real prospect of challenger clubs breaking into the top tier and winning trophies.

This sort of market structure also ignores the fact that the PL and the revenues it generates faces competition from other leagues, something which just isn’t a factor in US sports. I very much doubt that the PL would attract the best players under a tight spending cap environment, particularly given what’s happening in Saudi, and so the quality of the product would diminish over time.

But, clearly, this idea of a poorer product, stifled competition and larger, regulated profits for the owners - a bit like the utility providers in fact - is the vision which our media appears to be buying into.

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

Oligopolistic indeed.

 

[LeonardoDaVnci]

The collective wisdom of BMF appears to suggest there are 129 charges not 115 and these map into 6 issues. I've applied my personal assessment of percentage weight/magnitude below. There's no doubt Ethihad Airways is critical.

Etihad Airways 65%
Etisalat 15%
Aabar 5%
Fordham Image rights 5%
Mancini contract 5%
Non cooperation 5%

How the PL lawyers attempt to reverse the vindication of Ethihad at CAS is baffling. It will have to include irrefutable proof of perjury in the Swiss Court by at least three witnesses.