PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[slbsn]

Cheers, a bit of clarity helps. I just didn't understand it, a kind of double jeopardy in my mind but as you say stat padding to help in sensationalising the charges.

City already failed in an argument re the 2014 settlement at CAS. I suspect this wouldn't be double jeopardy because in essence the allegation is City entered a settlement on a false premise - fraud. Again, the allegation if proven knocks out those arguments. If not proven, point is moot.

 

[slbsn]

Christ! He's like the Rocky Santa Cruz of the legal profession - not played for six months!

A lot of "behind closed doors" games in fairness.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Cheers, a bit of clarity helps. I just didn't understand it, a kind of double jeopardy in my mind but as you say stat padding to help in sensationalising the charges.

It's not stat padding, per se. The UEFA charges are a logical consequence of breaching the "filing true and fair accounts" rules. As are the FFP charges. The good thing about that, though, is that the consequential allegations all fall away if the PL can't prove the primary allegations, primarily on sponsorship, especially Etihad. Which I doubt they will be able to do.

 

[WRicko]

Now we're at the stage of the case starting, say we mounted evidence of criminality within the PL could the case be halted? In the same way if a whistleblower gave criminal evidence to the panel against us, would the case stop and be referred to police?
Or does the whole case take place, any criminality get identified, then a decision, then passed over to authority? Was thinking could we see arrests made during the 10 week window

What evidence ? What criminality ? And why would we wait if there was any ? Would we even want to argue that is it would blow the league up which we need for our revenue

 

[Coatigan]

You definitely have suggested no appeals possible. Amongst others I’ve suggested to you that there could be. But your view then was definitively not.

View attachment 131621

To be fair, following my exchange with Stefan yesterday, I read back through a whole lot of pages where the point (re)occurs, and I (having earlier argued otherwise) can see that he at no point claimed no appeals. In fact he argued the opposite, but specific to no appeals to higher courts, cas, when a few posters challenged it but under the presumption he meant no appeals.

But from then on it branches into people claiming no appeals, and later attributing that claim to Stefan, and people arguing it, as if they are arguing something he said. There are too many posts to requote, and it is a consequential perception gone wrong.

You can take the time to do it yourself, or you can trust that I did, you will likely end up with the same conclusion.

Stefan didn't claim no appeals at all, just the differnce between going to higher courts (and even that he said there was a possibility but a slim one if the procedure wasn't followed).

 

[Scott mcfc]

We will be fine,trust in club,theyve never failed us once,simple as that

 

[Pingu the Penguin]

To be fair, following my exchange with Stefan yesterday, I read back through a whole lot of pages where the point (re)occurs, and I (having earlier argued otherwise) can see that he at no point claimed no appeals. In fact he argued the opposite, but specific to no appeals to higher courts, cas, when a few posters challenged it but under the presumption he meant no appeals.

But from then on it branches into people claiming no appeals, and later attributing that claim to Stefan, and people arguing it, as if they are arguing something he said. There are too many posts to requote, and it is a consequential perception gone wrong.

You can take the time to do it yourself, or you can trust that I did, you will likely end up with the same conclusion.

Stefan didn't claim no appeals at all, just the differnce between going to higher courts (and even that he said there was a possibility but a slim one if the procedure wasn't followed).

Thanks mate ofc I’m going to trust you. And I agree with that conclusion. It’s the same one I came to too. I’m not saying the whole shebang gets re run in the high court

 

[dickie davies]

He’s probably right about that. If the PL have nothing on us and have gone through all this, heads will indeed roll. Lots of them.

Really!
How many lost their jobs at UEFA?

The PL will come out with a statement similar to the Leicester one, "We are disappointed that the panel didn't find in our favour and we still believe that the charges were the correct way to proceed. However, in this case, we will abide by the panel's ruling"

 

[Centurions]

Really!
How many lost their jobs at UEFA?

The PL will come out with a statement similar to the Leicester one, "We are disappointed that the panel didn't find in our favour and we still believe that the charges were the correct way to proceed. However, in this case, we will abide by the panel's ruling"

Two was it not, that we know of.

 

[slbsn]

Not doubling down I promise. In the exchange you go on to say that things won’t be going to the Supreme Court etc and you hope not as things will have gone horribly wrong for us if so. My point in that exchange (as now) is that a sports tribunal that dabbles in fraud and related law is doing so ultra vires and/or will cock it up. If it does we will have appeal rights.

Lets rewind "You definitely have suggested no appeals possible. Amongst others I’ve suggested to you that there could be. But your view then was definitively not."

So you do still say I said no appeals despite posting me saying there is a PL appeal?

So of course you are doubling down.

Of course, I go on from my point about the High Court to suggest a challenge to the Supreme Court is near impossible. Because it is and yes it would have meant things have gone horribly wrong for City - it would have meant:
a) City had been found in breach of substantive charges
b) City would have failed in the PL appeal
c) City would have failed under Rule X of the PL rules to challenge some part of the PL process
d) City would have failed in the HC to challenge the jurisdiction of the PL arbitration
e) City would have failed (if they got there) in the Court of Appeal to challenge the HC decision referred to in d)
f) City would have needed CoA leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.

As for your apparent new point (unrelated to me never saying no appeals) is that I am wrong to say there are no COURT appeals. And you do this with some creative argument that an arbitration panel could never assess civil fraud and therefore, all of the Club's agreement with the Premier League is unenforceable.

The problem with this is that the Club aren't arguing it themselves. They have clearly accepted the PLs jurisdiction because a hearing on those points commences on Monday (allegedly). So not only are those arguments likely hopeless, City's window for running them has gone.

So lets be clear - I have never said no appeals but I have said the path to the Courts is very difficult and would have meant a very bad outcome at the IC/Appeal. I also do not see a route to the Courts to hear the substantive allegations - the Courts will be asked only to consider the rules of the Premier League in the highly unlikely scenario you suggest.

Annoyed with myself for even replying but this should clear up the nonsense in your original post and give people some colour on a potentially relevant worst case.