PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[meltonblue]

The main reason why Al Jazira and City could be classed as related parties would be that both are owned by Sheikh Mansour. But that's not enough in itself to automatically make them so. Sheikh Mansour seems to play little or no part in the overall management of City, therefore it's unlikely that the two clubs would be classed as related, and we never have been according to the accounts.

I’d argue it is if one entity is negotiating contracts on the others behalf though and there were transactions between the two on that contract.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I’d argue it is if one entity is negotiating contracts on the others behalf though and there were transactions between the two on that contract.

That's not how a related party is defined though, for one thing. And I'd argue that, as Mancini's employer, City had a right to negotiate, or be heavily involved in the negotiation of, any side contract.

 

[GortonBlue62]

The independent regulator is independent their powers are set by an act of parliament its downs time a that the government of the day will interfere
CAS is an arbitration service
The PL independent commission is appointed by the PL and will consist of at least 2 KCs who will consider the evidence from both parties much like CAS

You've told me nothing I don't already know and it doesn't contradict what I said.

I'd say the PL IC is the equivalent of the UEFA panel that found us guilty.

The IC appeal panel will also be a PL appointed entity (unlike CAS which is a truly independent arbitration service) and my instincts tell me not to trust it.

As I say, I hope I'm wrong on this. Our legal experts on here seem to trust the integrity of the process and the panel so let's hope I'm flapping unnecessarily.

 

[KS55]

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.

I have argued for some time that UEFA should be two bodies, a regulator and a competition promoting/organising company. It’s bonkers being both.
That was stark in the case of PSG getting off ffp infractions, their president was, of course, also the head of Bein Sports who had just sponsored UEFA competitions and bought the tv rights for loads of money.

 

[meltonblue]

That's not how a related party is defined though, for one thing. And I'd argue that, as Mancini's employer, City had a right to negotiate, or be heavily involved in the negotiation of, any side contract.

It is if you couple those points together. If you have the same principle owner of both and a director of one entity with the ability to negotiate contracts on behalf of the other, I’d argue that’d be a tough sell to say they aren’t related parties.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

It is if you couple those points together. If you have the same principle owner of both and a director of one entity with the ability to negotiate contracts on behalf of the other, I’d argue that’d be a tough sell to say they aren’t related parties.

Sheikh Mansour is a related party to City and to Al Jazira but that doesn't make City & Al Jazira related parties.

 

[meltonblue]

Sheikh Mansour is a related party to City and to Al Jazira but that doesn't make City & Al Jazira related parties.

Not in itself, no, I never said it did. It does if decision making at one entity is influenced by the other though and it can if there’s negotiation done by one on behalf of the other, that’s what would be hard to argue.

 

[LeonardoDaVnci]

By way of a diversion, here's my favourite bit of UEFA bullshit from CAS2020. After accusing just about everybody associated with City, the owner, execs, sponsors, accountants, auditors of a criminal consiparcy to commit fraud with NO evidence, they spouted this shite...

 

[Dribble]

By way of a diversion, here's my favourite bit of UEFA bullshit from CAS2020. After accusing just about everybody associated with City, the owner, execs, sponsors, accountants, auditors of a criminal consiparcy to commit fraud with NO evidence, they spouted this shite...
View attachment 111776

Just trying to cover their arse for the inevitable accusations of heading a witchhunt against us.

They're not even any good at spinning bullshit...

 

[cheekybids]

Thing is, why would 2009 City be arsed about keeping an extra couple of million off the books for Mancini's wage? There was no FFP and we were throwing huge sums of money around and incurring heavy losses. That they're even bringing this up just shows how desperate they are.

It makes as much sense that they believe that City must be state owned & Sheik Mansour is just a figure head but he’s paying the sponsorship for state owned Etihad…….

Mental gymnastics