PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[bobbyowenquiff]

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)

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.

 

[The perfect fumble]

It looks like they have pursued City even though they have no evidence.

You mean they acted in bad faith!!

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

You mean they acted in bad faith!!

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.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

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…

Would it be classed as personal data tho?

 

[Xhavenjoe]

Unbelievable, the lack of self awareness from the Premier League.

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.

 

[WRicko]

If I were a betting man my guess it would be more to do with our matters and not Cities.

Why

 

[WRicko]

Help us out then…….

Impartiality & availability of arbitrators ans retaining documents

 

[LongsightM13]

Even the ICO only holds for 6 years as their standard, up from 5 as of this year
And they are the organisation that regulates and enforces that legislation

 

[WRicko]

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.

Also don’t forget the independence and availability of the panel

 

[KS55]

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.

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.’

 

[Deep Blue]

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.

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.

 

[Truesilverblue]

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.

 

[eastmanc]

Everton Women have a bigger stadium.

It's a lot older though.

 

[eastmanc]

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.

Spot on.

 

[eastmanc]

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.

How would you know to keep the documents if you hadn't been investigated in the first place? That doesn't make sense.

 

[eastmanc]

Unbelievable, the lack of self awareness from the Premier League.

I love Connor Moore but the Premier league thinking that we should take the piss out of ourselves is fucking crazy.

 

[manimanc]

The Premier League are the pisshead in the pub throwing haymakers everywhere and not landing a single one.

They are well and truly fucked.

Big time.

 

[blueste41]

As far as I am aware there has never been a similar case. Not heard of any others facing so many accusations.

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.

 

[blueste41]

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.

Clubs are now required to preserve documents AFTER they have been informed of an inquiry not in any event. If that new clause relates to our case it would perhaps to suggest some emails have gone missing during the enquiry. I doubt they do though as they are not dissimilar to other rules for other organisations.

 

[Centurions]

Neither did the PL ha ha

I'm shocked I tell 'ya, shocked!!!