PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[terraloon]

How much is Chelsea hotel worth ? I mean the figure seems high but it’s London and it could be worth more if the ground is redeveloped on the other hand it could be worth less if the redevelopment means knocking it down or relocating Chelsea no away fans. I thought I read it has been loosing money do not know how in London

When Ken Bates set about building Chelsea Village the expectation was that things such as night clubs, health clubs etc built on the site would generate. 24/7 income alas the hotels never did and ironically the view very much is that when they were operating they in effect competed with hospitlaity.

It’s crystal clear that BlueCo 22 are the entity that will be building and funding the stadium rebuild so you would imagine that other parcels of land, buildings on site that were previously part of Fordstams property port folio and I would assume that were transferred when Chelsea Holdings was sold will have already been or will be “sold”.

Bear in mind the hotel sale was agreed on 28/6/23 by that date the 23/24 rule book had been agreed and Implemented on 14/6/23 .

That either means either

1) The sale was in train and it was agreed to be acceptable under old rules
2) It is accepted it fits the criteria adopted on 14/6/23

 

[Pontypool Blue]

Premier League statement

www.premierleague.com

Alleged breaches

compare with the Scum's equivalent: Minor alleged breaches, allegedly.

 

[argyle]

"Eamonn Sweeney: Another hollow Man City title looms after rivals run out of gas in a deeply unfair race"

Another one on the list to get a letter from Lord Pannick, once this is over , revenge must begin, our reputation must be upheld in the courts.

We might not like what he has to say but he's not broken any libel laws.

 

[norman]

I assumed it was us at first doh.
When you read the PL statement about Everton’s non cooperation, and compare the IC statement, you have to wonder what the hell is going on with the PL investigation board.
The nagging worry I’ve had since the 115 was announced is the difficulty in imagining the PL is incompetent and would issue without pretty substantial evidence to justify proceeding, and presumably taking legal advice first.
The more I read about it, and seeing what a farce PSR is becoming, and seeing the utter disdain the IC had for the PL view on non-cooperation, the more I’m inclined to the view that the PL is incompetent.
I re-read the “merits” judgement after City were defeated in the commercial court.
I think that City were trying to block a pure fishing expedition by the PL panel, but could only have the issue independently tested by a tribunal not linked to the PL. City were legitimately concerned about the PL panel being allowed to make sweeping requests for documents without specifying why they required such documents - a fishing expedition. So rather than obstructing or delaying the PL process, City were exercising what legal rights they had to challenge it. Although City lost on that occasion concern was expressed about the length of time of the PL investigation had already taken and no judicial opinion was expressed as to whether City’s application was, in effect, a delaying tactic. So even on the non-cooperation charges, provided City have since cooperated then for City to be punished for non-cooperation would require the I.C. to deem City’s application to the commercial court to have been an unjustified delaying tactic.
I’ve rambled on a bit and all this is my interpretation which may be incorrect and there may be more to it but overall it’s as likely as not the PL hierarchy did not and do not know what they are doing

 

[KS55]

The Premier League is the complainant/claimant. We are the respondent. We are under no obligation to just give the PL everything they want to prove a case against us. They are saying that we have done wrong and asking us to prove it on their behalf. We do not have to prove anything. The Premier League has brought charges against us because they believe that they have the evidence to find that we are in breach of the rules. We do not have to comply with any fishing expedition they wish to undertake so that they can throw the book at us. It is very clear to me that City are taking top-level advice about what to disclose. Every City fan should be feeling very confident in view of these remarks.

I think this is the crux of the matter. The PL claim that their rules entitle them to any document they fancy. We argue that we are entitled to not disclose certain items.
Over to the panel?

 

[halfcenturyup]

I assumed it was us at first doh.
When you read the PL statement about Everton’s non cooperation, and compare the IC statement, you have to wonder what the hell is going on with the PL investigation board.
The nagging worry I’ve had since the 115 was announced is the difficulty in imagining the PL is incompetent and would issue without pretty substantial evidence to justify proceeding, and presumably taking legal advice first.
The more I read about it, and seeing what a farce PSR is becoming, and seeing the utter disdain the IC had for the PL view on non-cooperation, the more I’m inclined to the view that the PL is incompetent.
I re-read the “merits” judgement after City were defeated in the commercial court.
I think that City were trying to block a pure fishing expedition by the PL panel, but could only have the issue independently tested by a tribunal not linked to the PL. City were legitimately concerned about the PL panel being allowed to make sweeping requests for documents without specifying why they required such documents - a fishing expedition. So rather than obstructing or delaying the PL process, City were exercising what legal rights they had to challenge it. Although City lost on that occasion concern was expressed about the length of time of the PL investigation had already taken and no judicial opinion was expressed as to whether City’s application was, in effect, a delaying tactic. So even on the non-cooperation charges, provided City have since cooperated then for City to be punished for non-cooperation would require the I.C. to deem City’s application to the commercial court to have been an unjustified delaying tactic.
I’ve rambled on a bit and all this is my interpretation which may be incorrect and there may be more to it but overall it’s as likely as not the PL hierarchy did not and do not know what they are doing

It's amazing how many people address the allegations from so many different angles and all come to the same conclusion. To quote you: the PL hierarchy did not and do not know what they are doing".

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

This is almost a childlike response, can't believe they've exposed themselves so badly by issuing this

Cant see this attachment.Has it been pulled

 

[Gordyola]

I have never been entirely sanguine about the issue of co-operation either with UEFA or with PL. There are some things we would not want to disclose for confidentiality reasons and that might reasonably be argued but we seem to refuse some requests for no discernible reason.
If we have irrefutable evidence of our innocence, why withhold data?

Not wanting commercially sensitive information given to our rivals? Its not like PL is an independent body that is confidential I'm pretty sure that was the Club's case in the High Court case that they lost

 

[norman]

Not wanting commercially sensitive information given to our rivals? Its not like PL is an independent body that is confidential I'm pretty sure that was the Club's case in the High Court case that they lost

The club in the slsbn tweet* was Everton not City (as I thought at first)
That and impartiality concerns was the case City lost.
*looks like the tweet has been removed

 

[Pontypool Blue]

Key an eye on this. You will enjoy it... give it an hour or so

I did and now it just disappeared?