PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

I don’t watch The Overlap for obvious reasons but stumbled upon a YouTube clip this morning of Big Steve giving it back to a Cockney Rag who went full City bingo for the cameras: Financial doping, sport washing, State-owned…

Not watching the full clip but I’m sure the impartial adjudicator Jamie Carragher stepped in to reiterate the word “alleged”.
 
Vic said:
It's an unusual commercial arrangement whereby one company freely enters a contract to pay another company and a trade body intervenes to reduce the price agreed.

In the present case, Etihad are not a party to it. Even if the PL won, City may be bound by PL rules not to go to an external court to appeal, but if it mounts to an accusation of fraud by the sponsor, is there anything to stop the sponsor suing for defamation?

Alternatively, if the judgment is that it was fraudulent, what happens if the club reports itself to the police for fraud, the Crown Prosecution Service reviews the evidence and says there's no prospect of a conviction? (And just imagine the DPP supports one of the PL rivals!)
Click to expand...

On your first point, I find it incredible that that is apparently legal. Sure, for the good if the sport, only put what the PL considers as fmv income in the FFP P/L. But no, they gave given themselves the authority to tell a third party, not governed by PL contract and very likely in a different country, to enter into a new contract for a lower amount. They have even given themselves the power to increase the amount the third party pays if they consider it undervalued. I still can't understand how that is legal.

On your other two points, I have been saying that since early last year. It's one of the many reasons I think the PL doesn't have a chance of finding the club guilty of the most serious charges. What panel is going to make a "guilty" finding then to have a criminal investigation not even started, refused on the grounds of insufficient evidence or to have one concluded without a guilty verdict. Yes, the lawyers can talk about different jurisdictions with different standards of proof, but it would be hugely destructive to the reputation of the PL and its disciplinary procedures. I am pretty sure the panel will bear that in mind when coming to their conclusions even applying a higher standard of proof than usual. Super-cogency, if you will.
 
halfcenturyup said:
On your first point, I find it incredible that that is apparently legal. Sure, for the good if the sport, only put what the PL considers as fmv income in the FFP P/L. But no, they gave given themselves the authority to tell a third party, not governed by PL contract and very likely in a different country, to enter into a new contract for a lower amount. They have even given themselves the power to increase the amount the third party pays if they consider it undervalued. I still can't understand how that is legal.

On your other two points, I have been saying that since early last year. It's one of the many reasons I think the PL doesn't have a chance of finding the club guilty of the most serious charges. What panel is going to make a "guilty" finding then to have a criminal investigation not even started, refused on the grounds of insufficient evidence or to have one concluded without a guilty verdict. Yes, the lawyers can talk about different jurisdictions with different standards of proof, but it would be hugely destructive to the reputation of the PL and its disciplinary procedures. I am pretty sure the panel will bear that in mind when coming to their conclusions even applying a higher standard of proof than usual. Super-cogency, if you will.
Click to expand...
Vic said:
It's an unusual commercial arrangement whereby one company freely enters a contract to pay another company and a trade body intervenes to reduce the price agreed.

In the present case, Etihad are not a party to it. Even if the PL won, City may be bound by PL rules not to go to an external court to appeal, but if it mounts to an accusation of fraud by the sponsor, is there anything to stop the sponsor suing for defamation?
Click to expand...

Given what is being inferred from the charges themselves what would have prevented Etihad & Etsilat from making a claim against the PL at an earlier stage?

It might have been a useful tactic to try and grease the wheels.
 
Wonder is news will start to filter out during the International break.

Got to keep the PL relevant and everyone has had just about enough of International football.
 
ysmsa said:
Wonder is news will start to filter out during the International break.

Got to keep the PL relevant and everyone has had just about enough of International football.
Click to expand...
There is no news of note. The hearing was scheduled for ten weeks, it looks like it will run for ten weeks, finish at the end of next week and then we can expect a judgment in several months.

I still think March for the outcome.
 
jaiguruKun said:
Given what is being inferred from the charges themselves what would have prevented Etihad & Etsilat from making a claim against the PL at an earlier stage?

It might have been a useful tactic to try and grease the wheels.
Click to expand...

All imho only:

I guess it would be difficult show a loss. I suppose, though, that if the allegations are proven without any criminal follow-up and Etihad had postponed their IPO as a result, incurring losses, then anything is possible, if not particularly likely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.