You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules
- Thread starter ayrshire_blue
- Start date
ayrshire_blue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 1 May 2008
- Messages
- 6,129
What do people think of this paragraph from the APT tribunal award?
View attachment 134890
It's clearly talking about the 115 case and it's relevance to the introduction of the APT rules. Whatever Herbert said convinced the arbitrators that a move from ex-post to ex-ante was justified so it couldn't have been the funding aspects of the sponsorships, because that wouldn't have been picked up by any review of fmv, whenever it was carried out.
Which leads me to think that the PL has re-opened the questions of the fmv of the AD sponsorships and the related party nature of the sponsors going back to 2009/10. They may well be re-litigating the funding issues dismissed at CAS and may even have extended their time frame if they have additional evidence. But it seems to me now that they are also pressing on the related party nature of the sponsors, the fact that they weren't disclosed as such in the accounts and the fact that required details of the RPTs were not provided and on the fmv of the transactions.
This would explain the reference to related parties in the list of allegations referred to the disciplinary procedure in 2023 and their inclusion in the APT jusgment as a relevant factor.
I thought that was unlikely previously (especially as UEFA has never formally alleged that the AD sponsors were related parties or were anything other than fmv) but it seems almost certain to me that the PL has opened those issues up again.
I'm confused. I thought we all knew what the alleged breaches were, are you suggesting they include actually something different entirely?
If that's the case, what does this mean for us?
I think it would be a huge stretch for the pl to try and relitigate something that has been dismissed but what is universally recognised as the highest court for sports arbitration in the world.What do people think of this paragraph from the APT tribunal award?
View attachment 134890
It's clearly talking about the 115 case and it's relevance to the introduction of the APT rules. Whatever Herbert said convinced the arbitrators that a move from ex-post to ex-ante was justified so it couldn't have been the funding aspects of the sponsorships, because that wouldn't have been picked up by any review of fmv, whenever it was carried out.
Which leads me to think that the PL has re-opened the questions of the fmv of the AD sponsorships and the related party nature of the sponsors going back to 2009/10. They may well be re-litigating the funding issues dismissed at CAS and may even have extended their time frame if they have additional evidence. But it seems to me now that they are also pressing on the related party nature of the sponsors, the fact that they weren't disclosed as such in the accounts and the fact that required details of the RPTs were not provided and on the fmv of the transactions.
This would explain the reference to related parties in the list of allegations referred to the disciplinary procedure in 2023 and their inclusion in the APT jusgment as a relevant factor.
I thought that was unlikely previously (especially as UEFA has never formally alleged that the AD sponsors were related parties or were anything other than fmv) but it seems almost certain to me that the PL has opened those issues up again.
We know the rules we are supposed to have broken, but not specifically how ( though City will know of course)I'm confused. I thought we all knew what the alleged breaches were, are you suggesting they include actually something different entirely?
If that's the case, what does this mean for us?
M18CTID
Well-Known Member
Cheers. Easy to get mixed up when you see all the negative articles about us!
M18CTID
Well-Known Member
I think what he's trying to say is that they could be throwing even more shit at us than originally thoughtI'm confused. I thought we all knew what the alleged breaches were, are you suggesting they include actually something different entirely?
If that's the case, what does this mean for us?
Exeter Blue I am here
Well-Known Member
Ah, the penny drops! Cheers!It's not the journo, it's Jamie Herbert, the PL’s Director of Governance.
Do you think they are related and complete incompetence just runs in the familyIt's not the journo, it's Jamie Herbert, the PL’s Director of Governance.
blue b4 the moon
Well-Known Member
Between the lines it seems stuff isn't sticking.....I think what he's trying to say is that they could be throwing even more shit at us than originally thought
Think comedy films where once the gun runs out of bullets, the gun, bottles, cardboard boxes, sponges etc in fact, anything is then thrown in desperation.
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 11,584
I think it would be a huge stretch for the pl to try and relitigate something that has been dismissed but what is universally recognised as the highest court for sports arbitration in the world.
I don't think they dismissed either, tbh. I think they accepted that UEFA weren't disputing either fair value or "related partyness". Could be a subtle difference. What do I know?