PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Maly said:
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)
Click to expand...
Just re-reading these rule changes I think Stefan has uncovered a big development in the story. The changed rules now state clubs must start saving relevant data as soon as they know they are under investigation. But the PL probe relates to data from more than six years ago well before the PL case was opened against City. Surely this can only mean that the PL have suffered a total defeat. It looks like they have pursued City even though they have no evidence.
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
It looks like they have pursued City even though they have no evidence.
Click to expand...
You mean they acted in bad faith!!
shocked-surprised.gif
 
The perfect fumble said:
You mean they acted in bad faith!!
shocked-surprised.gif
Click to expand...
No wonder the PL have been trying to delay things. They didn’t even have the authority to demand info from City over the six year limit. The PL has possibly been acting unlawfully again. It is similar to the APT case and presumably the PL could face action from City and other impacted clubs. No wonder it is taking so long for the Judges to unravel all this. The wording of their statement will have to take account of this complex situation. It is damage limitation by the PL to change the rules now even before the decision is published.
 
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...
Would it be classed as personal data tho?
 
jimharri said:



Unbelievable, the lack of self awareness from the Premier League.
Click to expand...

Cannot get my head around this one. I know he does sketches on PL managers and his act is to make a joke about them
He has done a few on Pep, not that funny and pandering to a juvenile audience.
He pokes fun at Mourinho, Klopp, Solksjaer etc. but a bit overboard on Pep and the 115.
I find him a lot funnier than Darren Farley but why would the PL ask any of these type of comedians to collaborate with us.
I'm assuming its only us.
I doubt Moore himself approached the PL.
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
Just re-reading these rule changes I think Stefan has uncovered a big development in the story. The changed rules now state clubs must start saving relevant data as soon as they know they are under investigation. But the PL probe relates to data from more than six years ago well before the PL case was opened against City. Surely this can only mean that the PL have suffered a total defeat. It looks like they have pursued City even though they have no evidence.
Click to expand...
Also don’t forget the independence and availability of the panel
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
Just re-reading these rule changes I think Stefan has uncovered a big development in the story. The changed rules now state clubs must start saving relevant data as soon as they know they are under investigation. But the PL probe relates to data from more than six years ago well before the PL case was opened against City. Surely this can only mean that the PL have suffered a total defeat. It looks like they have pursued City even though they have no evidence.
Click to expand...
We are moving inexorably towards the rule that the PL really want:
“Clubs must declare themselves guilty as soon as they are charged. Evidence, irrefutable or otherwise, will not be necessary.”
Henceforward it will be referred to as ‘the redshirt diktat.’
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
Just re-reading these rule changes I think Stefan has uncovered a big development in the story. The changed rules now state clubs must start saving relevant data as soon as they know they are under investigation. But the PL probe relates to data from more than six years ago well before the PL case was opened against City. Surely this can only mean that the PL have suffered a total defeat. It looks like they have pursued City even though they have no evidence.
Click to expand...
If we are exonerated we now can see the narrative that we are to be treated to. We had to change the rules to stop other teams exploiting the same loophole.
 
Hope you right but the club is fighting evil devils who are trying everything to put us out of existence because of our successes and wealth.
 
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...
Spot on.
 
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...
How would you know to keep the documents if you hadn't been investigated in the first place? That doesn't make sense.
 
KippaxNI said:
As far as I am aware there has never been a similar case. Not heard of any others facing so many accusations.
Click to expand...
They clearly mean when the PL have previously announced sanctions. In our case we need to wait for the panels verdict and then wait again for the sanctions the PL applies IF we are found guilty of any of the charges by the panel.
 
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