PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[BerkshireBlue]

Also not correct.

I'm not being funny but you have no idea what they've admitted, I have no idea what they've admitted. Some journalist has uncovered some paperwork that they suggest shows offshore payments. There's no way you can say that these two things are one and the same. So a one sentence answer dismissing my post without giving any proof or logical reason doesn't wash I'm afraid

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

It's exactly how it is written I'm afraid. The law is pretty clear in it's wordings

The law is rarely clear in its wordings. That one of the principal reasons we have developing case law.

 

[manimanc]

Just watched Stefan on Talkshite on you tube. Is it me or is he becoming more negative with regards to the potential outcome of City's case?

He's been Talksported.
He had to fall in line with their anti city, lying propaganda guff.
Shame as he always talks positive of us.

 

[Aphex Twin]

Telegraph headline this morning.

 

[halfcenturyup]

This is a quote from the “legal expert” referred to in the Ziegler article in today’s Times.
“Manchester City will have hope that the Leicester case shows an independent panel looking at the Premier League rules in forensic detail rather than doing what is expedient.”
Not sure where to start but on what legitimate basis could a so called independent panel do “what is expedient” rather than decide the issue on the basis of the evidence in detail.
It suggests that the EPL consider the panel is there to do its bidding and explains the surprise and disappointment expressed in their statement following the Leicester appeal verdict.
As others have said the governance of the EPL looks more and more flawed.

It suggests to me that Ziegler has no idea what he is talking about. Again.

 

[halfcenturyup]

He's been Talksported.
He had to fall in line with their anti city, lying propaganda guff.
Shame as he always talks positive of us.

Not sure if serious?

 

[dadnlad]

It suggests to me that Ziegler has no idea what he is talking about. Again.

But it's got big words so sounds good

 

[CC1]

Telegraph headline this morning.
View attachment 130882

Why would this be the case? Who is responsible for each side’s costs?

 

[halfcenturyup]

If they find an email or document suggesting we've co cered something up or paid something we shouldn't have done

An e-mail suggesting something has been done proves nothing about deliberate concealment, fraud or the covering up of an error. Surely the PL would have to prove it to the required standard for it to remove the limitation?

Or are you saying it's a chicken and egg question. The panel would have to fully assess each allegation to see if, say, fraud was committed so that they can say whether a particular allegation is time limited or not? So if it isn't fraudulent, say, an older allegation is time limited and if it is fraudulent, say, the limitation is removed?

Just trying to understand your point.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I've just been looking at the rules we're alleged to have infringed in (as a specimen) 2012/13. That covers the Mancini contract and the sponsorship issues.

There are five rules mentioned:
B16: "...each Club shall behave towards each other Club and the League with the utmost good faith."
That's really pretty subjective, unless the PL can prove that we deliberately deceived them.

E3: "Each Club shall by 1st March in each Season submit to the Secretary a copy of its
annual accounts in respect of its most recent financial year ... to be prepared and audited in
accordance with applicable legal and regulatory requirements) together with a
copy of the directors’ report for that year and a copy of the auditors’ report on
those accounts."
I find it hard to imagine we didn't do that.

E4: "The accounts referred to in Rule E.3 shall:
E.4.1. include separate disclosure within the balance sheet or notes to the accounts, or by way of supplementary information separately reported on by its auditors by way of procedures specified by the Board, of the total sums
payable and receivable in respect of Compensation Fees, Contingent Sums and Loan Fees;

E.4.2. include a breakdown within the profit and loss account or the notes to the accounts, or by way of supplementary information separately reported on by its auditors by way of procedures specified by the Board, of revenue in appropriate categories such as gate receipts, sponsorship and advertising, broadcasting rights, commercial income and other income."

E11 & E12 require clubs to submit future financial information by 31 March, prepared on the same basis as the annual accounts.

So unless we refused to provide annual accounts and future financial information, apart from the specific mention of a breakdown of revenue to include sponsorship & advertising, there seems to be very little substance to the actual rules themselves and there is nothing about expenses (i.e. manager remuneration).

That reinforces Stefan's point that, if the IC interpret the rules as written, we couldn't have broken any rules around Mancini's Al Jazira contract as there were no rules to break.