PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[117 M34]

If the PL investigation finds us 'guilty' is there a possibility that uefa could re-open their own case if some new evidence is brought to light?

 

[Moss Side's Finest]

Interesting how UEFA just accepted Chelsea's wrong doings (which are possibly more serious than those they charged us with), choosing to simply fine them and say 'don't do it again'. Whereas they almost sent themselves broke and insane trying to send us down.

 

[inbetween]

I have always thought it a problem where a single body runs a competition and also acts as the regulator. UEFA are the past masters at manipulating the rules to change the relative fortunes of clubs in their competitions. The PL is following suit. The independent regulator is a must.

Exactly, if the process isn't independent then it doesn't have any standing because how can it be deemed fair? The Premier League is a football organisation, it isn't an independent auditor or anything else.

A really interesting point is the Premier League is owned 21 ways where each year every league club is given a share and the FA holds the final share (or maybe it's just the 20 clubs, not sure). There is therefore a massive conflict of interest in that actually city have a stake in the very organisation that we're being investigated by, we can even vote against punishing ourselves.

The Premier League gets around this conflict by having a three person independent panel conduct breach investigations but who is this panel appointed by and what expertise do they hold? Nobody knows. They also can only consider any evidence put in front of them which might not be so damning but again nobody actually knows.

At the moment we have to accept this process for what it is however the big challenge will come afterwards if the end result is bad. Everything then comes down to litigation and legal process which I can see being dragged out for 10+ years. The other clubs will have to pay millions in costs to defend against that.

With this in mind and given the unlimited resources that city have, personally if I was the Premier League and city offered to settle the matter quietly and privately then I'd settle!

 

[Chi-town blues]

Exactly, if the process isn't independent then it doesn't have any standing because how can it be deemed fair? The Premier League is a football organisation, it isn't an independent auditor or anything else.

A really interesting point is the Premier League is owned 21 ways where each year every league club is given a share and the FA holds the final share. There is therefore a massive conflict of interest in that actually city have a stake in the very organisation that we're being investigated by, we can even vote against punishing ourselves.

The Premier League gets around this conflict by having a three person independent panel conduct breach investigations but who is this panel appointed by and what expertise do they hold? Nobody knows. They also can only consider any evidence put in front of them which might not be so damning but again nobody actually knows.

At the moment we have to accept this process for what it is however the big challenge will come afterwards if the end result is bad. Everything then comes down to litigation and legal process which I can see being dragged out for 10+ years. The other clubs will have to pay millions in costs to defend against that.

With this in mind and given the unlimited resources that city have, personally if I was the Premier League and city offered to settle the matter quietly and privately then I'd settle!

Key here” conflict of interest “ and this case can be dragged on forever.
Also what is the process of picking pl governing bodies ? Is it a voting system or cherry picking appointee ? post covid i think pl revenue grew almost 20% .Who conducts audit for pl ? Sky is one of the biggest sponsors, how much influence do they have ?

 

[Moss Side's Finest]

Don't forget, overarching all of this is the Government's requirement for a completely independent regulator to oversee elite level football. It is almost certain that this will be in place either before or during our case hearing. I can't imagine that independent regulator would be accepting of a football club being banished based on hashed evidence and a 3 person kangaroo court selected by clubs who all have a conflict of interest in proceedings.

 

[Jam Tomorrow]

Exactly, if the process isn't independent then it doesn't have any standing because how can it be deemed fair? The Premier League is a football organisation, it isn't an independent auditor or anything else.

A really interesting point is the Premier League is owned 21 ways where each year every league club is given a share and the FA holds the final share (or maybe it's just the 20 clubs, not sure). There is therefore a massive conflict of interest in that actually city have a stake in the very organisation that we're being investigated by, we can even vote against punishing ourselves.

The Premier League gets around this conflict by having a three person independent panel conduct breach investigations but who is this panel appointed by and what expertise do they hold? Nobody knows. They also can only consider any evidence put in front of them which might not be so damning but again nobody actually knows.

At the moment we have to accept this process for what it is however the big challenge will come afterwards if the end result is bad. Everything then comes down to litigation and legal process which I can see being dragged out for 10+ years. The other clubs will have to pay millions in costs to defend against that.

With this in mind and given the unlimited resources that city have, personally if I was the Premier League and city offered to settle the matter quietly and privately then I'd settle!

Wouldn’t surprise me if this is settled soon as the IC sits or before. The smear campaign has worked a treat. Another year of smears may be the limit of what they can achieve.

 

[Didsbury Dave]

No - if it is all proven and all appeals/challenges are exhausted the club won't be suing anyone

Calling @Prestwich_Blue to the thread. ;-)

 

[halfcenturyup]

Some tremendous quality contributions on here, genuinely a privilege to read them..
I'm hanging in there with the legal and accounting points with a reasonable grasp but one thing I would like to know is at what point will city get to know what the evidence of these alleged frauds, fictitious sponsorships actually is.
Is it a case of going to the hearing and waiting to see what they come up with or must everything be declared in advance so you have a good idea what is going to be said.
I'm guessing it's the latter but there must be adequate time scales I suppose.
Without getting into too much detail when will city know all this?

Iirc, the PL in our case has gone straight to a panel, so it is up to Rosen, or the chair if the panel if appointed, to send the complaint to the club. The complaint should list the rules breached, the facts behind them and copies of any documentation supporting those facts. I imagine that has happened. Then the club has 14 days to deny the charges with an answer that must include reasons and copies of relevant documentation. This 14 days can be extended by agreement, and I would imagine it has been.

After that there is a directions hearing to set the thing up, during which both sides can give more information and lists of witnesses and such like are agreed .

Then the chair of the panel sets a time, date and place for the hearing. If you believe the press (and why shouldn't we, they always seem well informed), we are at that stage now.

May all be bollocks :)

 

[halfcenturyup]

No - if it is all proven and all appeals/challenges are exhausted the club won't be suing anyone

Any chance that Newton can start a civil action in the UK courts against the PL if the finding is harmful to Mansour's reputation/investment?

 

[Norbiton]

Am I right in thinking we not only declined to hand over requested documents to UEFA, but also, after they asked for them, CAS, who then decided of their volition to proceed without them……or did we only give CAS some of what they asked for, or something like that?
If that was the case then it doesn’t exactly give me a warm fuzzy feeling that this time the tribunal will be dealing with a full deck, including the cards we declined to produce last time around!
Or have I imagined all of that?!

I thought we cooperated fully with CAS, who noted that if we’d given to UEFA what we gave to them there’d have been no basis for UEFA to pursue the charges