PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Iassel]

I’m the opposite. I believe if they thought they had something they’d have charged us for 1 year & then gone back with the extra years etc

The 115 was the punishment, brand damaging with them kicking it down the lane & then accusing us of that.

Of course it’s theoretically possible that this is simply a rehash of the UEFA case with exactly the same evidence, however the fact that the PL went to court, won and City were forced to hand over more than they wanted to suggests that it wont be.

As I’ve said before, my only basis point for speculating that the PL must have something they believe to be a golden bullet is that Adam Lewis has driven the process on their side and the guy quite literally wrote the playbook for how to litigate sporting cases, City obviously have a fantastically knowledgable and competent team also but Lewis is the go-to guy for this sort of case.

It’s important to acknowledge also that he won’t have taken the case for financial reasons, he picks and chooses his cases and will easily net £1m+ per year without taking this on, the hope is that as others have speculated it’s an ego thing for him in ‘succeeding’ where UEFA failed, which i can also accept is very possible.

Ultimately I’m not suggesting that I believe the PL will ‘win’, as with Stefan I think they’ve made a rod for their own back by clearly overcharging the club and with the overt allegation of fraud they’ll need to present something totally explosive to land those charges and I cant believe they have that, even if such a thing exists - my position that I’ve stated previously is that I suspect it will be a ‘guilty’ on Mancini, Fordham & Non-Cooperation, a decent (10+) points deduction and a fine, reduced on appeal to a large fine and maybe 1-3 points which I’m sure the clubs executives would be clearing out Manchester’s Cubana and Dom P reserves for if offered right now.

The underlying thing that I don’t think most have sufficiently acknowledged yet though is that it’s demonstrably *not* going to be a like-for-like tribunal as CAS, simply because it’s public record that the PL have gotten more from City via Commercial Court, now of course it’s phenomenally unlikely City have willingly provided them a golden bullet so I’m not exactly panicking about that, but we should all be clear that they do have a bit more than just the Der Speigel emails.

 

[Fordyboy46]

Who is Collymore? Never heard of him...LOL...once we are cleared he won't be able to say things like that. He's a very sad man.

He never has got over Pep's ' Stanley who' comment from several years ago

 

[Dribble]

I’m sorry but by your example you’ve allowed Burnham to play dumb about our charges & the evidence. He’s using his platform as Mayor of Greater Manchester to defend Everton by being both informed & biased whilst playing both ignorant & neutral witb regards to City. I would expect him to become informed, vocal & outraged about City when there is no evidence of wrongdoing compared to his own club that pleaded guilty.

What he’s done as a politician is show that his opinions & policies will match self interest & not the constituents.

Personally, I only heard from Burnham after Everton were docked points.

For Burnham to show outrage about our breaches after seeing our evidence, when the whole process is supposed to be confidential, is about as presumptuous as those screaming we're guilty & who want us hung, drawn & quartered before the hearings taken place & the evidence heard.

Both are opposite sides of the same presumptuous coin imo. If Burnham was to announce he'd seen the evidence of both sides, how could the hearings be a confidential & unbiased process?

I think you're being a littld bit harsh on Burnham...

 

[Milesvk]

Burnham states he will support both Manchester clubs for fairness. He will get himself in a pickle when he finds out one of those Manchester (Salford) clubs is helping creating the unfairness.

 

[feedmpenzaandhewillscore]

Burnham states he will support both Manchester clubs for fairness. He will get himself in a pickle when he finds out one of those Manchester (Salford) clubs is helping creating the unfairness.

Must be a mayoral election next month maybe?

 

[Centurions]

I’m sorry but by your example you’ve allowed Burnham to play dumb about our charges & the evidence. He’s using his platform as Mayor of Greater Manchester to defend Everton by being both informed & biased whilst playing both ignorant & neutral witb regards to City. I would expect him to become informed, vocal & outraged about City when there is no evidence of wrongdoing compared to his own club that pleaded guilty.

What he’s done as a politician is show that his opinions & policies will match self interest & not the constituents.

You're doing exactly what other fans say when talking about Everton or Forest, "what about City".

Everton & Forest admitted breaches, been evaluated and then punished. There is no relation to City's case whatsoever, judge Burnham on what he says when our case is finally over (if ever).

 

[Gazza]

He’s not really defending us there is he….. cock!

"When asked about City's 115 charges, he said that Everton had been unfairly treated"

 

[Dribble]

There was a European parliament report a few years ago that supported FFP, despite the challenge to EU law on unfair restraint on trade. What didn't get as much publicity was that the report also said that the regulatory body should not be run by directors of the clubs who might set and enforce rules to their clubs' advantage.

This is a very interesting point. I can't remember the full assessment, but I recall the EU's opinion on FFP being a bit more nuanced than that.

I heard some say the EU were in support of FFP, whilst others said they were supportive of mechanisms to protect the future of football that were compliant with EU Law.

In terms of the challenge, I think the EU were asked a question & gave an answer, but I'm not sure it was a legal challenge.

IIRC the challenge came where Struani was involved, & it was kicked back from the ECJ to the Belgian courts because the case had to have gone through a national process before the European Court could hear the case.

I can't remember what, if anything happened after that. Is there anyone who can give clarification on this?

 

[Roachy]

Of course it’s theoretically possible that this is simply a rehash of the UEFA case with exactly the same evidence, however the fact that the PL went to court, won and City were forced to hand over more than they wanted to suggests that it wont be.

As I’ve said before, my only basis point for speculating that the PL must have something they believe to be a golden bullet is that Adam Lewis has driven the process on their side and the guy quite literally wrote the playbook for how to litigate sporting cases, City obviously have a fantastically knowledgable and competent team also but Lewis is the go-to guy for this sort of case.

It’s important to acknowledge also that he won’t have taken the case for financial reasons, he picks and chooses his cases and will easily net £1m+ per year without taking this on, the hope is that as others have speculated it’s an ego thing for him in ‘succeeding’ where UEFA failed, which i can also accept is very possible.

Ultimately I’m not suggesting that I believe the PL will ‘win’, as with Stefan I think they’ve made a rod for their own back by clearly overcharging the club and with the overt allegation of fraud they’ll need to present something totally explosive to land those charges and I cant believe they have that, even if such a thing exists - my position that I’ve stated previously is that I suspect it will be a ‘guilty’ on Mancini, Fordham & Non-Cooperation, a decent (10+) points deduction and a fine, reduced on appeal to a large fine and maybe 1-3 points which I’m sure the clubs executives would be clearing out Manchester’s Cubana and Dom P reserves for if offered right now.

The underlying thing that I don’t think most have sufficiently acknowledged yet though is that it’s demonstrably *not* going to be a like-for-like tribunal as CAS, simply because it’s public record that the PL have gotten more from City via Commercial Court, now of course it’s phenomenally unlikely City have willingly provided them a golden bullet so I’m not exactly panicking about that, but we should all be clear that they do have a bit more than just the Der Speigel emails.

So in a nutshell, in your opinion, we've done some of what the PL have alleged and they have substantive proof to support it.

 

[projectriver]

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.

This is nonsense - to the extent there is a statute of limitations point to run, the IC will decide and will decide in accordance with English law - the rules are expressly stated to be construed in accordance with English law.

There are reasons for the PL to argue that City's actions means the SoL will not apply (concealment/fraud etc) but this is an argument that will have to be made. It may well be moot but it is undeniable there is an English law SoL in the Premier League rules. It was wrongly expressed by the media briefing at the start and it is wrong now.