PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[argyle]

The Telegraph is reporting that the government has issued a PIIN (Public Interest Intervention Notice) that will block the Redbird IMI backed buy back of the Telegraph by the Barclay family. This will trigger investigations by both Ofcom and the CMA to decide if it should be totally blocked or conditions be put in place before it is allowed.

The money for this buy back is almost exclusively coming from IMI, which is owned by Sheikh Mansour, and this is basically why they have done it. So a couple of days after Khaldoon was being courted by Jeremy Hunt for inward investment they are now effectively saying AD money isn't wanted for the Telegraph sale. The notion that the government will be leaning on the PL in support of our case looks a lot more like wishful thinking. They will pick and choose, so investment in Sizewell is deemed good but for other things it isn't wanted.

The Conservative's rely on fawning and lies from The Sun and the Daily Mail - the owners of those two papers want to buy the Telegraph.

I guarantee that pressure from those owners and their editors has been put on the government to block the deal.

 

[argyle]

When City are found innocent, can we all please sue the PL for damages, deformation etc?

There are no grounds to sue the PL.

They will argue they have followed procedure and I've seen/heard nothing that City believe they haven't.

It will also be hard to argue that this has materially damaged City when we're on for 4 league titles in a row, have just won the treble and are posting record revenue and profits.

 

[oakiecokie]

There are no grounds to sue the PL.

They will argue they have followed procedure and I've seen/heard nothing that City believe they haven't.

It will also be hard to argue that this has materially damaged City when we're on for 4 league titles in a row, have just won the treble and are posting record revenue and profits.

Unfortunately oh so true argyle.

 

[Paladin]

Is the period when they can go back from February 2020 which is when the investigation was opened up or when the charges were laid out three years later?

I believe limitation is measured from the date the charges are made.

 

[Metalartin]

Although I'm no expert, my understanding(from listening to others, like Stefan) is that the main charges aren't based on the PL's version FFP which were introduced as late as 2013. They seem like charges of dishonest accounting, concealment, false reporting etc. I don't think the Mancini, image rights or non-cooperation accusations come under the FFP regulations either. It's all in the regular ruleset.

There are some references to adhering to UEFA's FFP regulations though which were introduced in 2011.

The PL have to govern their regulations in accordance with English law and a 6 year limitation would normally apply. However, that is not the case for accusations of concealment, which is how they are able to go back so far.

I think the PL has already explored any time barring issues before they brought the charges and City's side has already done the same. That doesn't mean they have sufficient evidence to a comfortable satisfaction though. Also, if City do have irrefutable evidence, then even if the PL think they've got something now, they will know they don't quite quickly at the arbitration.

Hopefully anyway.

For me, my mind keeps coming back to the fact that UEFA claimed they had proven their allegations to a comfortable satisfaction in accordance with Swiss law. They seemed to have briefed the press: "There is no way we have got this wrong, our AC panel are law experts". They tried to penalise a club on that basis("we've proven it") and we only found out they were wrong/lying thanks to CAS. CAS were the ones who got slated, when it definitely should have been UEFA, that should not be forgotten either.

Having no route to a different body/court is still a concern for me, I understand these are professionals but we were told the same of the CFCB. As I alluded to above, none of those who worked on the CFCB arbitration suffered reputational damage for bringing an incorrect verdict, that I saw.

If City feel the commission isn't independent after all, or that they aren't giving the proper due process, then City are pretty much screwed. If UEFA were allowed to select another panel of arbitrators, I have no doubt they would have backed their buddies on the first verdict by default.

The independent regulator can't come soon enough if only for piece of mind. Hopefully it(no route to take it elsewhere) turns out not to be an issue at all, we'll have to wait and see.

 

[Bald fraud]

Although I'm no expert, my understanding(from listening to others, like Stefan) is that the main charges aren't based on the PL's version FFP which were introduced as late as 2013. They seem like charges of dishonest accounting, concealment, false reporting etc. I don't think the Mancini, image rights or non-cooperation accusations come under the FFP regulations either. It's all in the regular ruleset.

There are some references to adhering to UEFA's FFP regulations though which were introduced in 2011.

The PL have to govern their regulations in accordance with English law and a 6 year limitation would normally apply. However, that is not the case for accusations of concealment, which is how they are able to go back so far.

I think the PL has already explored any time barring issues before they brought the charges and City's side has already done the same. That doesn't mean they have sufficient evidence to a comfortable satisfaction though. Also, if City do have irrefutable evidence, then even if the PL think they've got something now, they will know they don't quite quickly at the arbitration.

Hopefully anyway.

For me, my mind keeps coming back to the fact that UEFA claimed they had proven their allegations to a comfortable satisfaction in accordance with Swiss law. They seemed to have briefed the press: "There is no way we have got this wrong, our AC panel are law experts". They tried to penalise a club on that basis("we've proven it") and we only found out they were wrong/lying thanks to CAS. CAS were the ones who got slated, when it definitely should have been UEFA, that should not be forgotten either.

Having no route to a different body/court is still a concern for me, I understand these are professionals but we were told the same of the CFCB. As I alluded to above, none of those who worked on the CFCB arbitration suffered reputational damage for bringing an incorrect verdict, that I saw.

If City feel the commission isn't independent after all, or that they aren't giving the proper due process, then City are pretty much screwed. If UEFA were allowed to select another panel of arbitrators, I have no doubt they would have backed their buddies on the first verdict by default.

The independent regulator can't come soon enough if only for piece of mind. Hopefully it(no route to take it elsewhere) turns out not to be an issue at all, we'll have to wait and see.

100%! We definitely need the regulator in and hope that they really are independent. When all this is done it will be the best part of a decade of work from the prem to kill us! There’s no way we are coming out of this unscathed. It’s been there mission to do us for years!

 

[Dirty Harry]

I can't say I've ever discussed it with anyone, and nobody has ever brought it up with me either.

I'm not worried about it at all, and I've no idea how this thread got to over 3000 pages.

The question got me thinking too, and outside of my step father (once I managed to distract him from the reach around with his new red dipper friends), there isn’t anybody, and all he knew was what he’d read/was reading in the papers.

Kinell,I need to change my friends,that's to highbrow for a pleb like me.

Too (the second one :-D).

 

[Kinkys Left Foot]

Fucking Jordan again chuntering about Citys perceived procrastination when we are a defendant clearly in dispute with an aggressive plaintiff.

Somehow at our behest we can hugely expedite this hearing as we have previously expressed a wish to "have it dealt with quickly", even when the timelines are being laid down by the independant commission. He states this facetiously of course as if that somehow insinuates deliberate delay by City or its advocates which in turn of course points to "guilt" or "avoidance".

Then because he sued Dowie and thinks he knows the civil law procedures extrapolated an appeal process, because we've been found in breach of course, by which we somehow appeal to CAS and the process lasts until 2030!

Now previously I thought he was being deliberately provocative in his statements for triggering listeners as is talkshites modus operandi. However its now quite clear he does in fact know fuck all about our case or the hearings process and is as ill informed as your average Arsenal fan, just says it without that fucking awful narf Landan accent.

 

[halfcenturyup]

100%. You can only be charged for any offence based on the laws that existed at the time of the “offence”. Otherwise we’re into the world of arbitrariness and that is the antithesis of the rule of law.

So this is my theory: the PL asked for access to third parties to verify the accounting of Mancini, Etihad, Etisalat, Aabar and Fordham and we told them to fuck off, because once that door is opened they can ask anything. this would explain i) why there are 115 breaches covering everything for every year (because we haven't provided the evidence that satisfied their requests) ii), the change in the PL rules to make it compulsory to provide information from third parties (iirc), iii) the breaches of non-cooperation despite the club's protestations that they have complied with all ("lawful") requests, and iv) the reported challenge the club made on applying new rules to previous periods.

Then it all makes a modicum of sense. It also means the club just have to provide the panel our evidence, including appropriate third party evidence of our choosing, to counter the alleged breaches. Meaning the club stays in control of the cooperation process.

Just a few thoughts.

 

[eyalluvitt]

There are no grounds to sue the PL.

They will argue they have followed procedure and I've seen/heard nothing that City believe they haven't.

It will also be hard to argue that this has materially damaged City when we're on for 4 league titles in a row, have just won the treble and are posting record revenue and profits.

Definitely damaged our reputation as an organization, we could nave turned over 800m instead of 700m due to the Constant smearing of our name globally in every press outlet despite not actually proved to have done anything wrong. They fail to prove guilt we should demand 100m compo and they pay our more expensive than Everton’s legal costs of our 600 lawyers