PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[M18CTID]

I can't guarantee it was 1962 but four clubs were done for it: Peterborough and (I think) Northampton Town were demoted from the old Second Division to the fourth, which was a draconian punishment, and the FA (or FL) announced that any clubs found to be in breach of the same regulation would be treated in the same way. Then it came to light that United and Derby County may have actually breached the same regulations in the same way. The investigation showed this to be the case but the punishments were, for some reason, not on the same scale. I add that Matt Busby had apparently agreed a deal with at least one player which involved illegal payments right at the start of his managerial career in 1945. This was never actually proven but a Blackburn Rovers official went to meet the player at the railway station, having already agreed a deal with him, but was ignored by the player, who walked off with Busby and later signed for the rags.

A shame there were no CCTV cameras at railway stations back then!

 

[M18CTID]

If the premier league are looking for something that’s not there, could take forever looking for “it” ;)

If they’re in need of evidence, I’m sure they can ask their red-shirt mates and Daniel Levy to fabricate some ;)

 

[MillionMilesAway]

From what I recall the Rags committed a minor technical breach, or something like that. I don't recall any specifics on what the breach was or the amounts involved. So nothing to see, everything is fine. We can trust that the authorities dealt with it fairly can't we?

I don't think there is much detail - it's been described by the club as partly an effect of a change in how UEFA assessed losses during the pandemic.
I think the change is why it's been described as technical.

 

[halfcenturyup]

it is unlikely that there will be a prescribed order that the tribunal would have to determine matters in. They could determine the limitation point at the outset or as part of the overall decision. I expect that will be up to the panel. If it was the former, the tribunal would also need to be satisfied that there was a case to answer which itself could be determined at an early stage following an application from the club (or if its own volition) assuming that hasn’t already been determined.

As to the determination of deliberate concealment, if the tribunal found the accounts were false then it must follow from that (given the size of the organisation and involvement of auditors) that concealment/fraud was intrinsic to that process. It’s difficult to see how it could not be. If it doesn’t find that then (on the face of it) the allegation(s) fall away in any event and the limitation point is rendered moot.

Under the circumstances of the former what would still need to be determined was when discovery occurred, and as I said previously it’s hard to see how it could be any later than the Der Spiegel articles. It would be preposterous for the PL to argue otherwise in the circumstances. That assumes that these allegations are associated with those articles, as we are currently assuming they are, but can’t be sure about given the foregoing public absence of meaningful particulars.

A lot of this is guesswork and supposition, which shows the process up to be utterly flawed, especially given the profile of the claim and the public interest in it. They’ve accused the club of fraud without providing any meaningful context to that, which has fuelled the feeding frenzy in the media and allowed speculation and innuendo to flourish - which was probably the intent.

OK. Thanks for that.

Get the point about case to answer or no case to answer at the beginning, and about discovery.

The process is still a bit fuzzy to me but I suppose that is why lawyers are always rich, and accountants aren't :)

 

[Coatigan]

Hmm...... from anyone on here with a legal background. Did I not summarise it correctly?

I honestly wouldn't know. It is certainly clear and understandable, whether it is right, no idea. I haven't seen that claimed here myself.

Others have recently (confidently) claimed different, and that limitation is not what many think it to be i.e a time-bareing.

Seems to be a case of believing who/what you want. Either way, we have been charged with things well beyond what people assume should be on the table, so there is something in that.

 

[supercity88]

I don't think there is much detail - it's been described by the club as partly an effect of a change in how UEFA assessed losses during the pandemic.
I think the change is why it's been described as technical.

Sounds exactly like what happened to us with our initial sanctions, where we were hit hard and fined substantially despite the goalposts being moved.

Just picking up some of the other comments this morning. Forest's case looks to be a simple P&S one on the face of it, a bit like Everton. Chelsea's interests me more because they've admitted to some breaches under Abramovich in a clear attempt to show full compliance and get leniency. I'm intrigued to see if that's any quicker/easier for the PL to deal with because you'd imagine there's a fair amount to unpick as a result of what they've admitted and they may have to delve a lot deeper - or perhaps they won't even bother! Interesting either way.

Everton feel hard done by, from what I understand, because they saw the assistance Chelsea got when Abramovich was sanctioned and didn't get mitigation for the stadium naming rights deal from Usmanov's company - which fell through when he was sanctioned. I wonder if it would have been investigated as a related party, because it was clearly inflated way above market value considering they haven't got a new deal with anyone else.

 

[Gordyola]

Recently united were fined due to ffp. Can anyone here tell me how that compares to Evertons fine and crime? Are they vastly different and fair?

"United, who were one of a number of clubs who had been placed on a Financial Fair Play watchlist by Uefa, stated they lost €281m due to the pandemic but could only write off a €15m loss in the accounts they submitted to European football’s governing body.

The Carabao Cup winners, whose Old Trafford ground was empty when games were played behind closed doors, reported €234m of losses due to Covid during 2019-20 and 2020-21 and then a further €47m in 2021-22, a period Uefa monitored. The Premier League permitted Covid-19 adjusted losses for the 2021-22 campaign but Uefa did not, as United did not breach domestic FFP regulations"

Manchester United fined for breaking financial fair play rules

United were penalised for ‘a minor technical breach’ around their reporting of Covid-19 losses

www.independent.co.uk

 

[halfcenturyup]

I honestly wouldn't know. It is certainly clear and understandable, whether it is right, no idea. I haven't seen that claimed here myself.

Others have recently (confidently) claimed different, and that limitation is not what many think it to be i.e a time-bareing.

Seems to be a case of believing who/what you want. Either way, we have been charged with things well beyond what people assume should be on the table, so there is something in that.

I think the problem is that lawyers have a way of describing the law which is perfectly clear to them but absolutely unintelligible to any normal people, like accountants. :)

I think what I summarised is, in essence, the situation but I expect to be blasted (again) soon if I am wrong .....

 

[Gordyola]

If they’re in need of evidence, I’m sure they can ask their red-shirt mates and Daniel Levy to fabricate some ;)

Levy will keep his nose out of the affair now having seen what has happened to his Father in Law Maybe he has learned his lesson to not cross a very rich and powerful man

Tottenham distance themselves from Joe Lewis after insider trading charges

Tottenham have sought to make it plain that Joe Lewis is no longer the owner of the club after he was bailed having pleaded not guilty to insider trading charges

www.theguardian.com

 

[supercity88]

I honestly wouldn't know. It is certainly clear and understandable, whether it is right, no idea. I haven't seen that claimed here myself.

Others have recently (confidently) claimed different, and that limitation is not what many think it to be i.e a time-bareing.

Seems to be a case of believing who/what you want. Either way, we have been charged with things well beyond what people assume should be on the table, so there is something in that.

From your discussion with @gordondaviesmoustache yesterday, I took it that there was only a limitation period in terms of bringing charges against the club from the date of discovery. The date of discovery presumably, but not definitely, being the Der Speigel article. In order to appropriately uncover what is alleged against us I would have thought it was legally acceptable for the PL to go back and review the accounts from the whole period covered by the P&S rules. They can't go back to 2002 because they've not discovered anything that would make that relevant. As to what they can and can't go back and check - I'm sure this will be one of the many arguments!

Behind the scenes clearly the PL would know they don't stand much chance of success with more recent accounts because it would be ridiculous to find us guilty of any breaches if CAS didn't (if we take the same accounting period). So they naturally will want to go further back, which UEFA couldn't, to uncover anything else which would help them find differently to CAS. My nervousness with this, as I've said before, is that CAS found 2-1 in our favour. So one of the judges still wasn't convinced. So what we presented to them was in no way irrefutable by definition, and I can't help but wonder if initially there were a few slip ups as the club tried to side-step the rules as best they could.

The fact that politics is at play behind the scenes, in our favour, makes this even more interesting though. Without that I strongly believe we'd be screwed. But with it we've got the power to ensure that the PL investigation gets axed, an independent regulator takes over and Khaldoon is the fucking chairman of it.