PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Citi-leaks]

I can't say that's my impression. And I also thought the architects were utd and bayern and applied at UEFA's level rather than French league level.

The Bundesliga and Ligue 1 had a huge hand in creating FFP. They already had a version of it built into the structure of their 2 leagues, and they were starting to feel disadvantaged with La Liga, the Premier league and Serie A clubs being able to snap up the worlds best players while not having any of the funds available. They only needed Platini to agree and he did.

The Premier league at the time had a combined club debt of 3.3bn. Which had seen Leeds and Portsmouth going into administration with West Ham and Everton teetering on the verge of it. Then you had the leveraged buyouts of LFC & MUFC which saddled debt onto the two biggest clubs in England. This was massive news at the time, and the Premier League had no plans or strategy to combat this. They were terrified of losing money from TV rights deals, or a European super league, so they were lobbying the sports minister for help. Then enter Karl-Heinz Rummenigge and Michel Platini from stage left, with the FFPR handbook, and the PL grabbed it with both hands, because they didn't have a leg to stand on at the time.

 

[halfcenturyup]

I can't say that's my impression. And I also thought the architects were utd and bayern and applied at UEFA's level rather than French league level.

That's how I remember it. Iirc, it was first dreamed up by Platini with the noble aim of increasing sustainability by regulating debt. But he got beaten down by the big clubs, including but not limited to Bayern and United, to restricting investment and stopping another Chelsea. Which morphed into stopping City, and then much later Newcastle, when it was introduced in England.

 

[Kippax77]

The Bundesliga and Ligue 1 had a huge hand in creating FFP. They already had a version of it built into the structure of their 2 leagues, and they were starting to feel disadvantaged with La Liga, the Premier league and Serie A clubs being able to snap up the worlds best players while not having any of the funds available. They only needed Platini to agree and he did.

The Premier league at the time had a combined club debt of 3.3bn. Which had seen Leeds and Portsmouth going into administration with West Ham and Everton teetering on the verge of it. Then you had the leveraged buyouts of LFC & MUFC which saddled debt onto the two biggest clubs in England. This was massive news at the time, and the Premier League had no plans or strategy to combat this. They were terrified of losing money from TV rights deals, or a European super league, so they were lobbying the sports minister for help. Then enter Karl-Heinz Rummenigge and Michel Platini from stage left, with the FFPR handbook, and the PL grabbed it with both hands, because they didn't have a leg to stand on at the time.

A very insightful post

 

[Agueroooooooooooo]

I’m not a lawyer but even I know civil fraud is a thing.

The burden of proof is determined by the venue, hence why we have civil rape trials, where the burden of proof is still balance of probabilities despite the fact it’s about whether a crime took place.

Fair point. So I guess the question is who would be the litigators/prosecutors.

Other clubs=civil=balance of probabilities
CPS=criminal=beyond reasonable doubt
???

 

[CC1]

The key point is that there is no limitation carve out in the PL rules which, in the absence of that, is English law

@slbsn - is that good?

 

[halfcenturyup]

Fair point. So I guess the question is who would be the litigators/prosecutors.

Other clubs=civil=balance of probabilities
CPS=criminal=beyond reasonable doubt
???

In this case, it's quite obviously breach of contract, a civil matter, so I don't even know what the debate is about.

 

[halfcenturyup]

@slbsn - is that good?

It means anything older than six years from February 2023 is time limited unless fraud or concealment are involved. So it's good.

 

[danielwood5]

That's how I remember it. Iirc, it was first dreamed up by Platini with the noble aim of increasing sustainability by regulating debt. But he got beaten down by the big clubs, including but not limited to Bayern and United, to restricting investment and stopping another Chelsea. Which morphed into stopping City, and then much later Newcastle, when it was introduced in England.

AC Milan were also heavily involved in changing the rules from focusing on debt to what we've got now. Platini mentioned it on the interview with Martin Samuels, Platini said Berlusconi came to him and said something along the lines of he'd already put enough money in to AC Milan to make them succesful and that he didn't want to put any more in but if more people invested in other clubs the way he had with AC Milan this would create more competition for them and he'd have to continue to invest.

 

[bladdered]

Because it’s shaped, driven and legitimised by the media. Across the entire spectrum - from the Guardian’s “row of grinning beards” to the Telegraph’s toxic hatred of Arabs in general and Abu Dhabi in particular. The BBC join in or at best turn a blind eye and Sky (Comcast) is in the pocket of the Cartel US clubs.
I hold the media much more responsible for racism etc than general football fans.

And celebrities are not exempt. How did he get away with this?

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

It means anything older than six years from February 2023 is time limited unless fraud or concealment are involved. So it's good.

Assuming that limitation comes into play, and that the IC adopt the same approach as CAS, then anything prior to the 2016/17 financial year will be time-barred.

That rules out the Mancini contract and probably Fordham as well, leaving just one or two years of the sponsorships and the non-cooperarion stuff.