PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

meltonblue said:
Only what’s out there in terms of the Der Spiegel leak.

The only question I’ve got on the Fordham one is why wasn’t it part of Uefa’s case against us
Click to expand...
UEFA looked into Fordham & said it was OK, but they wanted us & other clubs to wind down these schemes.

This happened in 2015 & by 2018, all our image rights were back within the club, hence it's never been a major issue.
 
StillBluessinceHydeRoad said:
I think the two issues get mixed up on this thread, and I admit I am as guilty as anyone for doing this. The first is the matter of the 115 very serious charges brought against us by the PL. Fortunately we have briefed Lord Pannick to argue our case and I think we are very safe in his hands. In addition we trust our owners and opinion on here appears to be overwhelmingly that our evidence is indeed irrefutable. What we find impossibly difficult at times is to keep the PL charges separate from our belief that the PL is little, if anything, more or less than a vehicle for the protection of the "red cartel" as Sir Mark Hendrick describes it. Lord Pannick will not fall into this trap but what our club should be doing, and I'd be surprised if it isn't, and our fan organisations should be doing as well, is making representations to MPs and other representative bodies to ensure the regulations which the IR works with are in the best interests of football and the fans. What our owners have done for our club and our city are models for the English game.
Click to expand...

Andy Burnham was on the Sports Agents podcast a week or so ago and made an important point in this respect. He said that there was an obvious conflict of interest between the PL being both the promoter of a product and the regulator of it. I think that is spot on. Plainly there is a potential conflict between the role of developing the PL brand as much as possible and the role of ensuring regulatory compliance amongst its members. One of the reasons a lot of non-blues think we will "get off with it" is precisely because of that conflict. In recent years there have been a fair few instances of, for instance, professional bodies having their trade union and regulatory functions separated, so that for instance doctors' interests are promoted by the BMA but their conduct is regulated by the General Medical Council. Solicitors are protected by the Law Society but regulated by the Solicitors' Regulatory Authority.

In the case of the PL, the reality however seems to be even more nuanced. I would say there is wide recognition, at least on this forum, that the red top clubs, rags and dippers in particular, have a disproportionate amount of influence over the PL. The example everyone knows of is their role in the recruitment of Richard Masters, with the additional interview and the surprising withdrawal of other candidates who would have been offered the job before him. Surprisingly, or not according to perspective, that story (whilst plainly true as I recall it) did not get much traction amongst the mainstream media.

It seems to me the appointment of an independent regulator can only be a good thing. At the very least, we could be satisfied that a regulator with a statutory remit would be much less likely to do the bidding of the red shirts. At the very least, we would know that disciplinary charges were not brought from a desire to nobble a competitor. At best, an independent regulator can bring an end to some of the corruption that has surrounded the game at PL level.
 
Chris in London said:
Andy Burnham was on the Sports Agents podcast a week or so ago and made an important point in this respect. He said that there was an obvious conflict of interest between the PL being both the promoter of a product and the regulator of it. I think that is spot on. Plainly there is a potential conflict between the role of developing the PL brand as much as possible and the role of ensuring regulatory compliance amongst its members. One of the reasons a lot of non-blues think we will "get off with it" is precisely because of that conflict. In recent years there have been a fair few instances of, for instance, professional bodies having their trade union and regulatory functions separated, so that for instance doctors' interests are promoted by the BMA but their conduct is regulated by the General Medical Council. Solicitors are protected by the Law Society but regulated by the Solicitors' Regulatory Authority.

In the case of the PL, the reality however seems to be even more nuanced. I would say there is wide recognition, at least on this forum, that the red top clubs, rags and dippers in particular, have a disproportionate amount of influence over the PL. The example everyone knows of is their role in the recruitment of Richard Masters, with the additional interview and the surprising withdrawal of other candidates who would have been offered the job before him. Surprisingly, or not according to perspective, that story (whilst plainly true as I recall it) did not get much traction amongst the mainstream media.

It seems to me the appointment of an independent regulator can only be a good thing. At the very least, we could be satisfied that a regulator with a statutory remit would be much less likely to do the bidding of the red shirts. At the very least, we would know that disciplinary charges were not brought from a desire to nobble a competitor. At best, an independent regulator can bring an end to some of the corruption that has surrounded the game at PL level.
Click to expand...
The most commercially successful football league on the planet will not benefit from the dead hand of government regulation.

What's required is genuinely independent arbitration, (CAS for example) to prevent the stitch up that might be coming our way from the 'Independent' Commission that will try our case.
 
meltonblue said:
Only what’s out there in terms of the Der Spiegel leak.

The only question I’ve got on the Fordham one is why wasn’t it part of Uefa’s case against us
Click to expand...

Have you ever seen the actual DS emails on Fordham? It's the only one of the allegations I am unsure about, but that is only because I don't much about how it worked. I would be very surprised if it wasn't completely above board, though. As I say, I imagine these guys get legal and tax clearance on everything.

On UEFA, they looked at Fordham in 2014 and it was part of the settlement. I suspect they didn't re-open it again in 2019 because of the settlement in the same way they didn't open up related parties and fair value again.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Have you ever seen the actual DS emails on Fordham? It's the only one of the allegations I am unsure about, but that is only because I don't much about how it worked. I would be very surprised if it wasn't completely above board, though. As I say, I imagine these guys get legal and tax clearance on everything.

On UEFA, they looked at Fordham in 2014 and it was part of the settlement. I suspect they didn't re-open it again in 2019 because of the settlement in the same way they didn't open up related parties and fair value again.
Click to expand...
Haven’t the PL gone back earlier than 2014?
 
halfcenturyup said:
Why?
Click to expand...
Sounds like affectively a related party transaction and off the books payment. I think what we are accused of doing wrong. No city fan should be saying stuff like that we should be maintaining innocence.

I always assumed the payments where entirely separate and justified after all the other club is not part of CFG
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.