PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

bobbyowenquiff said:
Is it another sneaky rule change which has been slipped out quietly by the PL because it will support their ongoing narrative that City were unable to supply them with emails and documents
going back to 2008? How realistic is to ask any business to archive material going back 17 years when their books have been audited every year and been approved? The lack of transparency by the PL and the way it governs elite football is a disgrace. Does this rule extend to confidential financial documents provided by external sponsors which have no legal obligation to release their business documents....especially to be seen by their commercial rivals? The PL is a cowboy operation.
Click to expand...
Any sensible organisation has a retention policy that fully obeys data protection law. And GDPR/the Data Protection Act says you must not hold any personal data for longer than is absolutely necessary
For most of my recently employers, including an organisation that knows more about this legislation than anybody, that period is 5 years. Anything older HAS to be deleted if it contains personal data, unless there are clear and GDPR audited reasons why. A full data protection assessment
So this latest oddness might well actually turn out to be unlawful.
Mind you. Wouldn’t be the first time the PL has tried to rush through rules that will later be found to be illegal…
 
Last edited:
the thing is Chelsea's lawyers are just very clever.
hotel sales, all above board
women team sales, all above board, others now started to copy...
and earlier the 8-9 year contracts which had to be approved until the changes happened, it did help them with some expensive players amortized costs early on...

they probably told new owners to admit some of sketchy stuff of the Abra era, and this will help to get tiny punishment, compared to PL finds out from different source and then goes on witch hunt like with City, even though the actual rules broken are just as sick or even worse than some of the 115 charges.
the amount potentially involved in us maybe paying Mancini bits and pieces through UAE club, doesnt even come close to Chelsea regularly paying off agents outside the accounts which helped them to get big players "cheaper" = sporting advantage.

make no mistake if we would report ourselves now that we see under the Sinawatra era there were some strange payments PL would start a huge investigation no matter what and media noise around it would be serious.
with Chelsea though I am doubtful they even get anything else than a small financial fine maybe. despite these do not even need much a hearing as they self admitted all of it.

the media silence on Chelsea's case is brutal. nobody interested, nobody asking for timelines, nobody impatient to know the punishment.
 
Paladin said:
My reading of the new rules is that clubs are only required to preserve documents after an investigation commences. So if the normal requirement is to retain documents for six years, as dictated by limitation law, and an investigation hasn't commenced against a club in that time, then a club might dispose of those no longer needed documents. Any subsequent investigation might not have documents to look at.

This will put the onus on the PL to be more diligent in their consideration of club accounts.
Click to expand...
That's interesting. So this rule change may be positive in the sense that it restricts the preservation of documents only after an investigation is launched. Why would any club save documents when they have been given a clean bill of health by Auditors? I wonder if the PL are plugging the gap because their five-year fishing expedition has come unstuck and they know they are facing defeat. I didn't know that the law required a six-year limitation.
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
That's interesting. So this rule change may be positive in the sense that it restricts the preservation of documents only after an investigation is launched. Why would any club save documents when they have been given a clean bill of health by Auditors? I wonder if the PL are plugging the gap because their five-year fishing expedition has come unstuck and they know they are facing defeat. I didn't know that the law required a six-year limitation.
Click to expand...
Neither did the PL ha ha
 
LongsightM13 said:
Any sensible organisation has a retention policy that fully obeys data protection law. And GDPR/the Data Protection Act says you must not hold any personal data for longer than is absolutely necessary
For most of my recently employers, including an organisation that knows more about this legislation than anybody, that period is 5 years. Anything older HAS to be deleted if it contains personal data, unless there are clear and GSPR audited reasons why
So this latest oddness might well actually turn out to be unlawful.
Mind you. Wouldn’t be the first time the PL has tried to rush through rules that will later be found to be illegal…
Click to expand...
Has Stefan said anything else on Twitter. It really looks like the PL may be starting some damage limitation.
 
Damanino said:
the thing is Chelsea's lawyers are just very clever.
hotel sales, all above board
women team sales, all above board, others now started to copy...
and earlier the 8-9 year contracts which had to be approved until the changes happened, it did help them with some expensive players amortized costs early on...

they probably told new owners to admit some of sketchy stuff of the Abra era, and this will help to get tiny punishment, compared to PL finds out from different source and then goes on witch hunt like with City, even though the actual rules broken are just as sick or even worse than some of the 115 charges.
the amount potentially involved in us maybe paying Mancini bits and pieces through UAE club, doesnt even come close to Chelsea regularly paying off agents outside the accounts which helped them to get big players "cheaper" = sporting advantage.

make no mistake if we would report ourselves now that we see under the Sinawatra era there were some strange payments PL would start a huge investigation no matter what and media noise around it would be serious.
with Chelsea though I am doubtful they even get anything else than a small financial fine maybe. despite these do not even need much a hearing as they self admitted all of it.

the media silence on Chelsea's case is brutal. nobody interested, nobody asking for timelines, nobody impatient to know the punishment.
Click to expand...
They’re also under investigation for paying their Dutch feeder club off the books. The silence is deafening
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
That's interesting. So this rule change may be positive in the sense that it restricts the preservation of documents only after an investigation is launched. Why would any club save documents when they have been given a clean bill of health by Auditors? I wonder if the PL are plugging the gap because their five-year fishing expedition has come unstuck and they know they are facing defeat. I didn't know that the law required a six-year limitation.
Click to expand...
So over dramatic articles we see like this..
Screenshot_20250730_204038_Chrome.jpg
....are utter bollocks!

Fuck me and here was me worrying...
 
LongsightM13 said:
Any sensible organisation has a retention policy that fully obeys data protection law. And GDPR/the Data Protection Act says you must not hold any personal data for longer than is absolutely necessary
For most of my recently employers, including an organisation that knows more about this legislation than anybody, that period is 5 years. Anything older HAS to be deleted if it contains personal data, unless there are clear and GDPR audited reasons why. A full data protection assessment
So this latest oddness might well actually turn out to be unlawful.
Mind you. Wouldn’t be the first time the PL has tried to rush through rules that will later be found to be illegal…
Click to expand...
I’m with you on this. From memory, it’s 6 years for deletion of personal financial information, 5 years otherwise as you say

There’s definitely a number of exceptions, normally because a different law already exists, such as schools having to keep SEN data until the child is 25

But I really can’t see the PL rule book superseding GDPR
 
LongsightM13 said:
Face facts. One stand of Woodison will be open, the rest will be covered in tarps like in lockdown
It’s a nice PR story but the reality will be very different
Click to expand...
It will still hold more than the Minihad even with only one stand.
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
Has Stefan said anything else on Twitter. It really looks like the PL may be starting some damage limitation.
Click to expand...
With this & the impartial arbitration rule change, which someone posted earlier in the thread, I’d definitely say they’re both related to our case(s)
 
Damanino said:
the thing is Chelsea's lawyers are just very clever.
hotel sales, all above board
women team sales, all above board, others now started to copy...
and earlier the 8-9 year contracts which had to be approved until the changes happened, it did help them with some expensive players amortized costs early on...

they probably told new owners to admit some of sketchy stuff of the Abra era, and this will help to get tiny punishment, compared to PL finds out from different source and then goes on witch hunt like with City, even though the actual rules broken are just as sick or even worse than some of the 115 charges.
the amount potentially involved in us maybe paying Mancini bits and pieces through UAE club, doesnt even come close to Chelsea regularly paying off agents outside the accounts which helped them to get big players "cheaper" = sporting advantage.

make no mistake if we would report ourselves now that we see under the Sinawatra era there were some strange payments PL would start a huge investigation no matter what and media noise around it would be serious.
with Chelsea though I am doubtful they even get anything else than a small financial fine maybe. despite these do not even need much a hearing as they self admitted all of it.

the media silence on Chelsea's case is brutal. nobody interested, nobody asking for timelines, nobody impatient to know the punishment.
Click to expand...
This is a very good post and you make some great points.

One of the reasons there is so little fuss made by the media is because Chelsea don't pose a threat to the red cartel (Liverpool & Arsenal). Obviously I'm not including the rags here because they're beyond help.

I've said it before if MCFC were still struggling to break into the top four after all these years (2008) there would be no such thing as financial fair play or profit and sustainability rules.
 
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