PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[MillionMilesAway]

Regarding non-cooperation. Like everyone I’m just putting out my understanding of events. In particular with UEFA we were cooperating fully until everything we submitted ended up being leaked? Can’t see that applying to The Premier League. There’s documents you have to submit and we no doubt submitted them all. Additional info is surely by request.

My understanding is that the PL regs were updated at some point to say they can ask for just about anything - I can't remember if the change was made during the period the charges relate to, or after it.

Testing the regs in court could be viewed as non-cooperation; arguing or flat out refusing could be viewed as non-cooperation. As we don't know what is entailed, the non-cooperation charges may just be add-ons to be assessed for how valid they are.

Until their validity is tested, they are just charges under the regs; not bringing them might make any future occurrence (against any club) more difficult to bring - it would certainly be incentive to not cooperate.

Just my understanding, and may be wrong.

 

[BlueAnorak]

Yes we conspired to break FFP rules before it was invented.

I think they are trying to show we have form... so later charges have a better chance of sticking.

 

[BlueAnorak]

No they won’t. The PL have to show the services outlined in the Al Jazira contract, were NOT separate, and were NOT perfectly normal.

They have to show, in other words, that the contract was a sham.

Have they asked Al Jazira? Have they even asked Mancini? You can’t prove a contract is a sham unless both parties intend it should not be binding.

I’m not aware they have evidence that either didn’t intend to be bound by those terms, let alone both.

You do know who owns Al Jazira?
Only the Qaratris...
Not Abu Dhabi's greatest fans.

 

[JASR]

No they won’t. The PL have to show the services outlined in the Al Jazira contract, were NOT separate, and were NOT perfectly normal.

They have to show, in other words, that the contract was a sham.

Have they asked Al Jazira? Have they even asked Mancini? You can’t prove a contract is a sham unless both parties intend it should not be binding.

I’m not aware they have evidence that either didn’t intend to be bound by those terms, let alone both.

This is why a large proportion of the 115 will just be thrown out.
No evidence, no follow-up to possible witnesses, just pure hope and innuendo and making 2+2=5

 

[JASR]

You do know who owns Al Jazira?
Only the Qaratris...
Not Abu Dhabi's greatest fans.

I think it's a different Al Jazira?

 

[Packrat]

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

No they won’t. The PL have to show the services outlined in the Al Jazira contract, were NOT separate, and were NOT perfectly normal.

They have to show, in other words, that the contract was a sham.

Have they asked Al Jazira? Have they even asked Mancini? You can’t prove a contract is a sham unless both parties intend it should not be binding.

I’m not aware they have evidence that either didn’t intend to be bound by those terms, let alone both.

That pesky fuckin’ evidence again!

 

[1964]

I think it's a different Al Jazira?

ones a football club in uae the other is a tv company in qutar,not sure of the spelling ,

 

[eyalluvitt]

The EPL opened the can of worms, win or lose they have blown the model wide open for other European franchises to capitalise and take the best players from England.

Damage us, damage themselves, they ratified & signed off on our financials as fine and dandy

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

No they won’t. The PL have to show the services outlined in the Al Jazira contract, were NOT separate, and were NOT perfectly normal.

They have to show, in other words, that the contract was a sham.

Have they asked Al Jazira? Have they even asked Mancini? You can’t prove a contract is a sham unless both parties intend it should not be binding.

I’m not aware they have evidence that either didn’t intend to be bound by those terms, let alone both.

As you well know, you don't use a witness who can harm your case more than they can help it. I can't believe they expect to land the Mancini-related charges.

Given the outcome at CAS, I also can't believe they expect they can land the sponsorship charges. If I'm right that they knew about Fordham back in 2015, and neither UEFA nor the PL did anything at the time or subsequently, then they surely can't be confident they can land that either. So why do this?

We've speculated that it's just to damage our reputation, which looks more and more like a rational explanation, plus they might hope to get us on the non-cooperation allegations. Given the cost of this to the PL, if I was one of the non-cartel member clubs of the PL, I'd be asking some very searching questions once this is over.