PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

halfcenturyup said:
Sorry. After 10,000 pages, I really don't have the strength again.

Just to note that you have confirmed most of the allegations aren't in respect of breaching the FFP rules which was the only point I was trying to make.

I would suggest you look at Sections W and X again. The 115 case is a disciplinary matter under Section W, it is APT which is an arbitration under Section X.

Also, I think you should read the thread on the FAQs on the 115 case, in particular why the allegations in the first tranche are so serious.

Just trying to be helpful here.
Click to expand...
I know you're trying to be helpful. Thank you.

I think the FAQ you are referring to is the explanation thread that no has comments/replies switched off. IMHO there are several misleading elements in that.

None of the rule breaches listed under allegations 1 or 2 trigger the disciplinary process under Section W.

It is breaching rule E59 in allegation 4 which triggers the disciplinary process under Section W. Allegation 4 could only occur if allegations 1 and/or 2 are/is proven.

This is why I say this case and disciplinary action is entirely about breaching PSR.

My point is that even if allegations 1 and 2 are proven, allegation 4 does not automatically follow and the case collapses.

It is possible for Section W to be triggered separately by a third party complaint which might have happened (ie by Daniel Levy), but it seems from the way the statement was published that the allegations flow logically and relate to each other.

Whilst Section W (Disciplinary) is separate to Section X (Arbitration), rules X3.1 and X4 effectively mean that for any decision made under Section W to stand, it must comply with the principles of Section X. So the two are linked. I apologise if I have mixed up the usage in trying to express myself.

To be honest I don't think they could have made these rules any more complicated if they tried!
 
TedofChume said:
That's not right at all.

Allegation 4 is that City have broken PSR.

PSR is assessed by the Premier League, the process is defined in the relevsnant handbooks under rules E52-E60 for 2015-16 and rules E53-E60 for 2016-17 & 2017-18. These are 25 of the rules City are accused of breaking. It's a rolling 3 years, so the 5 seasons 2013-2018 affect the calculations for these 3 years.

The inaccurate reporting of accounts which you refer to are allegations 1 and 2, and these deals affect the accounts for the 5 seasons listed above.

Your allowances are listed in the glossary (for some obscure reason), see attached. City have included depreciation for the stadium expansion and Etihad campus in their accounts along with the other things I have mentioned. You can download the accounts from Companies House. You don't need to be an accountant it's just simple arithmetic.

City technically own the Etihad, paying a ground rent to the council, the lease was for 999 years (in much the same way you own a flat with a 999 year lease), City are responsible for all bills, maintenance, expansion etc and get the profits from gigs held there or other matches like England matches or Rangers v Zenit.
Click to expand...
I always thought we signed a 250 year lease in 2003 have we extended ?
 
Oldham Exile said:
I had a fantastic time in Istanbul - lucky enough to be there for 8 nights. I guess my experience was helped because I ignored the information about taking buses to the stadium and used the metro which was easy. That street with all the bars where everyone partied was brilliant
Click to expand...
We went for 5 nights and wished we'd stayed longer. We also ignored UEFA. Didn't go to their buses and got taxis through our hotel. Stayed on Nevizade and didn't go to the fan zone. Because we'd been to Porto and knew it would be shit. We didn't go back to the car park after the game. We were heading for the metro but jumped on a coach that was charging a tenner each to go back to town. Partied all night on Nevizade. The memory of having kebabs on Taksim Sq at 7am with the sun rising up over the mosque and City as treble winners will stay with me for ever.
 
TedofChume said:
I know you're trying to be helpful. Thank you.

I think the FAQ you are referring to is the explanation thread that no has comments/replies switched off. IMHO there are several misleading elements in that.

None of the rule breaches listed under allegations 1 or 2 trigger the disciplinary process under Section W.

It is breaching rule E59 in allegation 4 which triggers the disciplinary process under Section W. Allegation 4 could only occur if allegations 1 and/or 2 are/is proven.

This is why I say this case and disciplinary action is entirely about breaching PSR.

My point is that even if allegations 1 and 2 are proven, allegation 4 does not automatically follow and the case collapses.

It is possible for Section W to be triggered separately by a third party complaint which might have happened (ie by Daniel Levy), but it seems from the way the statement was published that the allegations flow logically and relate to each other.

Whilst Section W (Disciplinary) is separate to Section X (Arbitration), rules X3.1 and X4 effectively mean that for any decision made under Section W to stand, it must comply with the principles of Section X. So the two are linked. I apologise if I have mixed up the usage in trying to express myself.

To be honest I don't think they could have made these rules any more complicated if they tried!
Click to expand...
Not sure if you’re aware mate, but the FAQ you are questioning was written by a lawyer & halfcenturyup is a former finance chap

You’ve told them they’ve not understood or they’ve posted misleading elements

Can I ask, are you a layman like most of us, or do you have experience of arbitration & finance like the 2 posters you’ve questioned?
 
Oldham Exile said:
I had a fantastic time in Istanbul - lucky enough to be there for 8 nights. I guess my experience was helped because I ignored the information about taking buses to the stadium and used the metro which was easy. That street with all the bars where everyone partied was brilliant
Click to expand...

We got the bus to the ground, but after the match we weren't going through the same shit show again and chanced the Metro. We were crammed on with Inter fans, but they were sound to be fair to them.
 
Gingers Dad said:
We went for 5 nights and wished we'd stayed longer. We also ignored UEFA. Didn't go to their buses and got taxis through our hotel. Stayed on Nevizade and didn't go to the fan zone. Because we'd been to Porto and knew it would be shit. We didn't go back to the car park after the game. We were heading for the metro but jumped on a coach that was charging a tenner each to go back to town. Partied all night on Nevizade. The memory of having kebabs on Taksim Sq at 7am with the sun rising up over the mosque and City as treble winners will stay with me for ever.
Click to expand...
Fucking marvellous - that summarises my trip - Fucking loved it
 
TedofChume said:
I know you're trying to be helpful. Thank you.

I think the FAQ you are referring to is the explanation thread that no has comments/replies switched off. IMHO there are several misleading elements in that.

None of the rule breaches listed under allegations 1 or 2 trigger the disciplinary process under Section W.

It is breaching rule E59 in allegation 4 which triggers the disciplinary process under Section W. Allegation 4 could only occur if allegations 1 and/or 2 are/is proven.

This is why I say this case and disciplinary action is entirely about breaching PSR.

My point is that even if allegations 1 and 2 are proven, allegation 4 does not automatically follow and the case collapses.

It is possible for Section W to be triggered separately by a third party complaint which might have happened (ie by Daniel Levy), but it seems from the way the statement was published that the allegations flow logically and relate to each other.

Whilst Section W (Disciplinary) is separate to Section X (Arbitration), rules X3.1 and X4 effectively mean that for any decision made under Section W to stand, it must comply with the principles of Section X. So the two are linked. I apologise if I have mixed up the usage in trying to express myself.

To be honest I don't think they could have made these rules any more complicated if they tried!
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Everyone can draw their own conclusions from what we think we know.

And for what it's worth, if your conclusion is that the PL won't be able to prove the club breached the FFP limits for 2015/16, 2016/17 and 2017/18, then I think that is most probably correct.

But I do think the lawyers on here, if they were so inclined, would be able to point out many mistakes in the rest of your analysis. In particular about the Section W process, the seriousness of the first tranche of allegations and the likely punishments if those were to be proven.

I am not a lawyer though, thank God, so I really don't have the strength to go through it all again. If you doubt it, look at me .....

1000001103.jpg
 
Gingers Dad said:
We went for 5 nights and wished we'd stayed longer. We also ignored UEFA. Didn't go to their buses and got taxis through our hotel. Stayed on Nevizade and didn't go to the fan zone. Because we'd been to Porto and knew it would be shit. We didn't go back to the car park after the game. We were heading for the metro but jumped on a coach that was charging a tenner each to go back to town. Partied all night on Nevizade. The memory of having kebabs on Taksim Sq at 7am with the sun rising up over the mosque and City as treble winners will stay with me for ever.
Click to expand...
1746780876827.jpeg
 
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