PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[BeerIsTheBest]

We're all a few decades older now but any excuse to post this:

View attachment 114637

The spitting image of my wife. She refuses to wear the mask these days!

 

[KS55]

It’s a lie to say that the city execs have faced and defeated these charges before.

If you disagree with that you’re disagreeing with reality.

And no, the period is not longer because the investigation went on longer, it’s longer because there’s no time bar in the PL, so they can span 9 years not 5.

They don’t cover the same accounts because the 2009-2014 accounts were not involved in the uefa case.

They are not the same allegations, anyone who has spent 2 minutes in this thread knows that, let alone you.

It is not true there is no time bar in the PL. It is subject to both the Statute of Limitations and the Arbitration Act. Their limitations are not removed by the PL not putting them in their rules.

 

[GortonBlue62]

Clearly a forum of City fans has about as biased a view on FFP as is possible. Of course we do, again if we can’t acknowledge our own biases then we can’t have a grown up conversation.

We are obviously biased, but I'd suggest that the reason we listen so avidly to people like @Prestwich_Blue and @projectriver (and the many other excellent contributors on here) is because we're genuinly trying to understand a fairly complex situation and the MSM offers neither explanation nor balance.

Our 'explainers' ultimately called it correctly with respect to UEFA and CAS, which gives me a reasonable level of confidence that this time around we are also justified to be confident of a favourable outcome.

Do you think the MSM's portrayal of the situation is more balanced / accurate / more likely to be correct than the optimism most of us currently feel on this thread?

 

[eyalluvitt]

Was reading some of the CASS verdict this morning provided by one of the posters. Obviously some of the text is boring and repetitive, but one of the things I took away from it was the many references / mention of FFP and the importance of it to football (and the EU 'guidance' issues on the challenge to it) and how important it was that City did not minimalise it's importance by their actions (non cooperation).

Trouble is, if it was so perfect then - why does it need changing now?

 

[Spanishbob]

It's like discussing the decor of the main ballroom on the Titanic, instead of bailing into the lifeboats.

I knew bits about FFP, but there seemed no coherent explanation about our specific situation until @Prestwich_Blue took part in a discussion on YouTube.

Using his take on matters, I did my own detailed research & tried to simplify it for the FFP lay-members amongst our fans.

Essentially, UEFA & the PL are accusing us of fraud, but daren't use the word for fear of the legal can of worms it would open.

When we as fans get entangled with all the innuendo, nods & winks from the governing bodies which are designed to damage our reputation & public image, & ultimately stunt our challenge to their cherished cartel clubs, we lose sight of what all these alleged breaches are really about & designed to do.

They've failed to stop us on the field, so now they're trying to stop us from the boardroom. That's the tall & short of it.

Cutting to the chase, I repeat they're essentially accusing City of fraud. If this is the case, it's long past the time that the PL & UEFA should come out & say so, or shut the fuck up.

Personally, I'm done playing their idiotic games. The more we try to unpick their 115 breach bollocks, the more we add fuel to the fire they started.

This is why when faced with vitriolic opposition fans, I keep it simple & basic. "If you're calling City cheats, this implies fraud. So where's your proof?". This for me is the beginning & end of the matter.

CAS have already ruled UEFA had no evidence, so why the fuck are the PL picking up their baton & coming at us using the same charges which have already failed?

It's all bollocks mate. They need to call our alleged breaches what they keep hinting at, & suffer the consequences. The thing I keep highlighting to all is why aren't/don't they?

Outside of this, I'm not getting dragged any deeper into their bullshit rabbit hole about processes, rules or whatever, which are plainly the only mechanisms they have left to stop Manchester City Football Club.

Best post of the day and nailed on.

 

[domalino]

It is not true there is no time bar in the PL. It is subject to both the Statute of Limitations and the Arbitration Act. Their limitations are not removed by the PL not putting them in their rules.

Wrong again, it is true that there’s no time bar in the Premier League rules unlike UEFA’s. Thats a fact, I don’t care if you can’t stomach it.

Both are subject to the law of the land in which they’re enforced, like every single contract ever written which is why no one feels the needs to spell it out in every post.

That is what you’re pointing out, but that is something completely different. The panel won’t be making judgements on the statue of limitations, just as CAS would have allowed the earlier evidence into the case if it was looking at the PL’s rule book and the club would have to go to a high court after a verdict to appeal on the grounds of the statute of limitations.

 

[StillBluessinceHydeRoad]

I have read your (Domalino's) two posts from this morning and was intrigued by them. The only regulations from the 1960s which I can recall which dealt with cost control are those concerned wit player pay and signing on bonuses and fees. These were actually wide open to abuse by payments paid in cash stuffed into players' jackets in the changing room during a match or in the very early days of the FL by means of jobs for players in textile mills which did not involve work or even attendance. These rules were ditched in the very early !960s in the interests of competition - because English football risked losing its brightest stars to Italy where signing on fees and wages were far higher; John Charles got a signing on fee of £10 000 instead of the £10 Leeds could offer!

So, English football entered an era of financial deregulation, but this did not mean the "playing field" was more or less level than before. Perusal of the first division table at the end of the 1960-1 season it is seen that 9 of those 22 teams are not in the PL at present, but only 1 (Preston) has NEVER been in the PL. Two of those teams (Blackburn and Leicester) have in fact won the PL title. The conclusion seems to be that football today is at least as open as it was in 1961. By the end of the 1968-9 season 13 of the 22 first division clubs emerge to be members of the present PL but 7 of the 9 which don't are different from the 9 of 60-61. In other words change is very much part of the football scene after the end of financial regulation. This continued throughout the 1970s and 1980s and, in fact, became a little more open. The first division of 1979-80 shows 11 differences from the PL of today and that of 1980-90 shows 10. If we compare the PL from 2009-10 to today we see that there are only 8 differences to today in a smaller division of 20 clubs. From 2019-20 there are only 5 changes and these appear to be the same clubs going down and coming up again.

This decline in the competitive nature of the league is rooted in the rule changes made since 2010, but do not call it deregulation. Very detailed regulations were introduced, first by UEFA and then by the PL. What these rules do is NOT regulate the market but try to rig it in the interests of a cartel of clubs, not only in England but also in Europe. They are not interested in anything other than profit. So I'm afraid I cannot agree with much of your analysis. I can agree that some form of cost control may be necessary but this is for the economic/financial stability of the game and has to be a genuine attempt at fairness for all and not a set of half baked rules so obviously in the interests of an entitled bunch who want all the best players, all the sponsorship, all the investment, all the trophies .... and all the profit. To say something is about fair play doesn't mean it is or to claim it is to maintain profit and sustainability doesn't mean it is. How many football fans really believe that it is the only responsibility of their club to make a profit? How many believe it is the PL's right or responsibility to punish them if the don't? Is it truly the sole responsibility of an owner never to invest, but just to sit back and soak up the profits while the team goes to the dogs? Regulation, perhaps: a fix, no.

 

[KS55]

Wrong again, it is true that there’s no time bar in the Premier League rules unlike UEFA’s. Thats a fact, I don’t care if you can’t stomach it.

Both are subject to the law of the land in which they’re enforced, which is what you’re pointing out, but that is something completely different. CAS would have allowed the earlier evidence into the case if it was looking at the PL’s rule book and the club would have to go to a high court after a verdict to appeal on the grounds of the statute of limitations.

You clearly do not understand how the law works. Have you read the Arbitration Act? If not, I suggest you do.

 

[domalino]

You clearly do not understand how the law works. Have you read the Arbitration Act? If not, I suggest you do.

Yeah I have actually, which is one of the reasons I know that the Arbitration act allows 6 years not the 5 of UEFA’s rules, which would mean the Etisalat evidence coming into play - another reason why these two cases are not the same.


Which you know, but have omitted because you’re arguing dishonestly and in bad faith.

 

[KS55]

I have read your (Domalino's) two posts from this morning and was intrigued by them. The only regulations from the 1960s which I can recall which dealt with cost control are those concerned wit player pay and signing on bonuses and fees. These were actually wide open to abuse by payments paid in cash stuffed into players' jackets in the changing room during a match or in the very early days of the FL by means of jobs for players in textile mills which did not involve work or even attendance. These rules were ditched in the very early !960s in the interests of competition - because English football risked losing its brightest stars to Italy where signing on fees and wages were far higher; John Charles got a signing on fee of £10 000 instead of the £10 Leeds could offer!

So, English football entered an era of financial deregulation, but this did not mean the "playing field" was more or less level than before. Perusal of the first division table at the end of the 1960-1 season it is seen that 9 of those 22 teams are not in the PL at present, but only 1 (Preston) has NEVER been in the PL. Two of those teams (Blackburn and Leicester) have in fact won the PL title. The conclusion seems to be that football today is at least as open as it was in 1961. By the end of the 1968-9 season 13 of the 22 first division clubs emerge to be members of the present PL but 7 of the 9 which don't are different from the 9 of 60-61. In other words change is very much part of the football scene after the end of financial regulation. This continued throughout the 1970s and 1980s and, in fact, became a little more open. The first division of 1979-80 shows 11 differences from the PL of today and that of 1980-90 shows 10. If we compare the PL from 2009-10 to today we see that there are only 8 differences to today in a smaller division of 20 clubs. From 2019-20 there are only 5 changes and these appear to be the same clubs going down and coming up again.

This decline in the competitive nature of the league is rooted in the rule changes made since 2010, but do not call it deregulation. Very detailed regulations were introduced, first by UEFA and then by the PL. What these rules do is NOT regulate the market but try to rig it in the interests of a cartel of clubs, not only in England but also in Europe. They are not interested in anything other than profit. So I'm afraid I cannot agree with much of your analysis. I can agree that some form of cost control may be necessary but this is for the economic/financial stability of the game and has to be a genuine attempt at fairness for all and not a set of half baked rules so obviously in the interests of an entitled bunch who want all the best players, all the sponsorship, all the investment, all the trophies .... and all the profit. To say something is about fair play doesn't mean it is or to claim it is to maintain profit and sustainability doesn't mean it is. How many football fans really believe that it is the only responsibility of their club to make a profit? How many believe it is the PL's right or responsibility to punish them if the don't? Is it truly the sole responsibility of an owner never to invest, but just to sit back and soak up the profits while the team goes to the dogs? Regulation, perhaps: a fix, no.

A small point. The retain and transfer system meant that a player contract was FOR LIFE and gave the power to grant a transfer or not to the club. The Preston side you mentioned contained Tom Finney who was offered a fortune by an Italian club, I forget which. The Preston chairman said no and that was that. Finney went back to the max wage and his job as a plumber. I do not recall the details of John Charles leaving for Italy, but presumably he was granted release by Leeds.
The system was confirmed as illegal when George Eastham sued Newcastle who would not grant him release. The case resulted in partial freedom of contract.