PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Brendan110_0]

I guess the Fa PL don’t think they will the case on 115 points but will have some joy which may result in 30 odd charges sticking.

Bear in mind some of the charges we are guilty of is breaching uefa FFP which we accepted, paid the fine and reduced squad. Non compliance may well be another so it’s easy to see 30 odd charges sticking which proves we are guilty in the eyes of the red tops even tho it’s not the serious offences everyone thinks

Taken from the 2014 statement after we took a pinch "At the heart of discussions is a fundamental disagreement between the club's and Uefa's respective interpretations of the FFP regulations on players purchased before 2010"

That is not a statement of acceptance.

 

[Iassel]

I understand what you are saying but that seems like an awfully long distance to travel in an attempt to head off what everyone knows is inevitable...the independent regulator is coming and the PL have taken on Goliath with not a sling shot but a pea shooter...If they've decided to go after City with charges of such magnitude using basically the same evidence everyone already knows it to be, then something simply doesn't compute...they have a 2 inch you know what in their hands whether one looks at it from the top, the bottom, or the side...just sayin...

100% - my point was not that the PL threw this together at the last minute, that would be a crazy claim. Before even announcing charges there have already been 2x arbitration panels, a Commercial Court case and City’s appeal against that case and the PL won all 4, of course it wasn’t a last minute thing.

My belief is only that the announcement was rushed out in a panic, hence why the charges were pre-22/23 rulebook charges and not updated to the new rules.

 

[CC1]

100% - my point was not that the PL threw this together at the last minute, that would be a crazy claim. Before even announcing charges there have already been 2x arbitration panels, a Commercial Court case and City’s appeal against that case and the PL won all 4, of course it wasn’t a last minute thing.

My belief is only that the announcement was rushed out in a panic, hence why the charges were pre-22/23 rulebook charges and not updated to the new rules.

This is getting very confusing & obviously complicated.
Could you clarify what these 4 cases were? I didn’t know they’d won 4 against us. TIA

 

[KS55]

Correct.

The ruling is below.

https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/CAS_Award_6785___internet__.pdf

Thanks.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Note: I think our case at CAS was argued by Paul Harris, assisted by Monica Carrs Frisk
Pannick analysed the case in advance and agreed the lines with Monica.
Harris is slated for the current case.
Can anyone confirm?

Looking at his CV, I certainly hope so. His academic record and professional history are both insanely impressive.

https://www.monckton.com/wp-content/themes/monckton/pdf-download.php?v5=&slug=paul-harris-kc&type=barrister&pdfsections=all&specialsections=all

Think he might be conflicted though, seeing he’s previously acted for United and Liverpool!

 

[Rory Bluelow]

It’s a concern that many are overlooking. UEFA’s man at CAS had a human rights background IIRC and he voted against us on one charge after another. Hard to escape the notion that he was judging us for being ‘Manchester City owned by Sheikh Mansour’ rather than open mindedly assessing the evidence on its merits

He will have been UEFA’s nominee for a reason.

 

[cheekybids]

I don’t know where this idea that barristers only take on cases they think they can win is coming from or the notion that losing a case somehow damages their reputation. Perry Mason wasn’t real. Our own Lord Pannick even defended Boris Johnson, an impossible task which he made a decent fist of until Boris went off script as usual. It’s the skill with which they argue the case that counts, not the outcome. From what my lawyer friend says anyway, but of course they’ll say anything

“lucky to get zero”…

 

[Iassel]

This is getting very confusing & obviously complicated.
Could you clarify what these 4 cases were? I didn’t know they’d won 4 against us. TIA

No worries, from Blackstone’s website - Adam Lewis who is representing the PL has been on this since at least 2020. As below, the club challenged the process and failed at arbitration, then took it to commercial court, lost and were forced to provide documents to the PL. This process was what City fought to have embargoed but the Daily Mail won the right to publish.

 

[Bluechipblue]

Looking at Newsnow, there's a former CEO of Everton claiming City have a 30 strong set of in-house lawyers, that could potentially tie the PL up for a very long time. However, he then adds a caveat, whereby he states it is what he has heard, and doesn't know if it is true or not. Of course, the brain dead readers of other clubs will only digest the first part, and will become a fact. This is the kind of shite we are faced with, and the constant building of incessant reputational damage.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

The threshold for running a hearing is that the case is arguable. For people who are well paid to argue for a living, most things are arguable.

Oh no they're not!