journolud
Well-Known Member
The alternative to signing up being?
PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules
- Thread starter ayrshire_blue
- Start date
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
Not signing up.
SilverFox2
Well-Known Member
FFP was really a problem to City in its early stages where prolonged investment was needed.
Their problem now that we have been self sufficient for several years is that City continue to invest.
Tightening FFPs impact simply makes it more difficult for the other clubs to comply so works in our favour.
Their problem now that we have been self sufficient for several years is that City continue to invest.
Tightening FFPs impact simply makes it more difficult for the other clubs to comply so works in our favour.
give it to gordon
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Nov 2013
- Messages
- 15,770
- Team supported
- Manchester City
True but if you didnt sign up we can't be in the pl or cl.
Sounds like a kangaroo league, we make up dodgy rules and you have no choice.
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 9,569
They are the governing body so I think they just have to show that their regulations support the European Sports Model. I think it is fairly clear that some form of financial control is good for the game. Whether this version is it, is a different question, of course.
For the ESL, it is more complicated because UEFA is the governing body and a tournament organiser. I think the general position is that UEFA can't ban other tournaments if their regulations don't set out the conditions on which other tournaments are licensed. That was the case last time. But it isn't the case now, I don't think. I would imagine UEFA's new regulations include strict conditions for new tournaments such as annual invitation based on merit, protection of the domestic leagues, financing the pyramid etc., which can easily be argued to support the ESM and will make an ESL almost impossible, other than as a CL replacement. With the CL moving towards a league anyway and the new CWC, the attraction of an ESL will be considerably lessened, imho.
Could all be bollocks, though. :)
115 in a row
Is it your position that a governing body can introduce rules without regard for whether those rules conform with the law of the land?
Or is it that we can’t challenge the rules because we signed up to them?
Or is it something else?
Just trying to understand your argument.
supercity88
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 9 Aug 2009
- Messages
- 12,618
Having read the posts of those with more expertise I'm more comfortable than I was. I find myself torn between feeling confident we'll be okay and then remembering the huge agenda behind all of this and thinking there's no chance we can win.
However, this is really a duplication of the UEFA charges and has been forced on the PL by the red shirts and the looming threat of the independent regulator. They don't have anything new. It's a regurgitation of what we've already defended at CAS. You'd expect there to be some logic to the PL charges and that they've reviewed the case at CAS and refined their charges, but that's giving them far too much respect. They've just thrown the same charges at us, assumed that because of certain elements being time-barred with UEFA and not with them, that something might stick from that time period. And then thrown a load more random charges our way just to add weight to the argument.
However, this is really a duplication of the UEFA charges and has been forced on the PL by the red shirts and the looming threat of the independent regulator. They don't have anything new. It's a regurgitation of what we've already defended at CAS. You'd expect there to be some logic to the PL charges and that they've reviewed the case at CAS and refined their charges, but that's giving them far too much respect. They've just thrown the same charges at us, assumed that because of certain elements being time-barred with UEFA and not with them, that something might stick from that time period. And then thrown a load more random charges our way just to add weight to the argument.
The problem is that ffp doesnt strictly follow the laws of the land as in no other business is an outside entity allowed to determine market value, the market sets the value and people will pay what they believe it to be worth, thats basic economics only in football could we have a system as ridiculous as an outside body deciding how much you can make in sponsorship and whether that is fair.
Dribble
Well-Known Member
So here's a strange thing... A UK Lawyer said that the PL state in their memorandums of articles & association that they operate in accordance with UK Law. However, a statute of limitations of 6 months for minor criminal offences, & 6 years for civil, contract & debt cases exists in UK Law.
The only area where there's no statute of limitations, is for serious criminal offences typically tried at the Crown Court.
The Lawyer then said, at best he believes the PL adjudication panel can only go back to offences committed from 2017 onwards. Anything prior to this is time barred in UK Law.
Now this doesn't mean the PL can't go back pre-2017 in their own internal processes, but what it does mean is if City appeal the process in a civil court, the court will only consider evidence post February 2017.
From my understanding, most of what we're charged with is pre-2017, so would be thrown out if we appealed the process used in a UK Court of Law.
I was hearing so many scenarios at first, that I thought the PL had charged us, & were seeking the evidence to support their accusations, but that's definitely not the case.
The PL have charged us, disclosed their evidence to City & given it to the PL Adjudication panel to consider ahead of a hearing.
City have disclosed our evidence, & are now waiting for the hearing date, & that's where things get a bit odd. If the PL have charged us & disclosed their evidence to us & their panel, why all the estimates the whole process could take up to four years?
I get there are thousands of pages of documents & witness testimonies, but surely it can be resolved before then?
There are new claims the case will be heard commencing September 2024, with a verdict being reached by summer 2025, notwithstanding any delays.
City maintain we have irrefutable evidence & are confident of our innocence. As you say, many of the charges have already been heard & dismissed by CAS, so the reason this has all resurfaced is because of the Der Spiegel "evidence" which was gained through hacking.
We were also sanctioned by UEFA in 2014 for the majority of these charges, so it's difficult to see how the PL can charge us again.
We submit our financial reports to the PL, & they submit them to UEFA. The PL are seemingly claiming this constitutes two sets of breaches, because if we've lied to UEFA, we've defacto lied to the PL too. But what about the double jeopardy of being charged twice for the same alleged breaches? ¯\_(⊙_ʖ⊙)_/¯
Again, there's the lawful reporting of a crime. If the PL believe we've committed accounting fraud, they're duty bound by law to alert the authorities, whereby it'll become a criminal matter.
None of this has happened, because if they were to make this move, it would drag our auditors, sponsors, the Abu Dhabi Government & the Abu Dhabi Royal Family into the equation, which at the very least would cause a diplomatic incident, whereby the UK would be accusing Abu Dhabi of being fraudsters & crooks.
After rowing back on a 2021 investment commitment to the UK because of the mess caused by Doris & Truss, Sunak was seen as a steadying hand & Grant Schapps got the investment deal back on track, but at a reduced initial £10bn.
The Tories are desperate for this investment, so you can imagine their rage when the PL reared its turkey head with talk of charging us on the instructions of the Hateful Eight.
The Abu Dhabi investment deal was resurrected in January 2023. A month later the government gave the PL notice of an Independent Regulator for Football. The PL obviously panicked, & three days later City were charged.
The UK Government has bigger fish to fry, & too much to lose just to placate the Red Top Mafia & Spuds over trumped up football related charges.
Given the latest date for a General Election is January 28th 2025, the Tories will want Abu Dhabi's investment on their balance sheet, so they can justify tax cut bribes for their mates.
I very much doubt they'll allow FFP to hinder their re-election bid in any way shape or form. To qualify this, the Independent Regulator of Football will be setup in shadow form before 2024, & because it was in the King's Speech, it will be enacted BEFORE the next election.
Government ministers have already said they'll act retrospectively in the interests of the game, so quite how this will effect the PL's frivolous charges against us, remains of great interest.
The Government's wording & comments surrounding this seem to suggest, they're stepping in to take control of English & Welsh football, lock, stock & two smoking barrels.
City seem relaxed & confident about the charges. The PL seem to be shitting themselves & confused as what to do next.
The last time football authorities fucked with City, Platini & Blatter were arrested, charged, found guilty & banned from football.
Then on UEFA's behalf, the PL chose to pick a fight with us, & they've gone on to lose regulatory control of their Premier League cash cow. Coincidence? \0/
By unfairly pursuing City, the PL have inadvertently killed the goose that lays their gold eggs. ¯\_(⊙_ʖ⊙)_/¯
Whatever will be will be, but after initially being calm over the situation, then extremely worried, I've taken proper stock & now I'm very relaxed about the whole matter. Our owner & Khaldoon have got this.
Man City and the Premier League agree date for trial https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-12809173/Man-City-Premier-League-agree-date-tribunal-financial-rule-break-charges.html?ito=native_share_article-nativemenubutton