PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[slbsn]

Ours auditors, BDO are also the auditors of the Premier League. We also have the same bank as the PL ie Barclays, who are the PL sponsors.

And the ultimate irony is Barclays would probably have gone wallop if it wasn't for the intervention of Sheik Mansour during the global financial crisis of 2008. The type of fact that never gets a mention but makes one's blood boil, just a tad.

Deloitte audit the PL not BDO

 

[KS55]

Thanks. But the Leicester case is not a good example. The lawyer’s advice in that case was that the PL were correct but they lost - the advice was not that they would lose but they carried on regardless. In fact, on Leicester, the PL were amazed they lost given the advice.

Of course, the whole City case could be a huge cock up or a purely vindictive pursuit of a case the PL knew with near certainty they would lose. But, take a step back - that is obviously very unlikely.

It may be unlikely Stefan, but how likely was it that:
—Three candidates for CEO declined, one saying some clubs had too much influence.
— The PL asked two clubs to approve their appointment of the current CEO and allowed them to question him.
— The PL issued a ‘charge sheet’ that misidentified rule numbers.
— The PL icharged only City with breaking UEFA rules, but not others who paid fines to UEFA.
I just think their behaviour is odd and inconsistent.

 

[slbsn]

It may be unlikely Stefan, but how likely was it that:
—Three candidates for CEO declined, one saying some clubs had too much influence.
— The PL asked two clubs to approve their appointment of the current CEO and allowed them to question him.
— The PL issued a ‘charge sheet’ that misidentified rule numbers.
— The PL issued charged only City with breaking UEFA rules, but not others who paid fines to UEFA.
I just think their behaviour is odd and inconsistent.

- irrelevant really
- irrelevant
- sloppy but irrelevant
- I think the allegation is that City concealed matters so should also suffer the consequences of that in all rules if proven

I don't think any of these play to the question of ignoring legal advice on the City charges. But as I said, perhaps I am just naive.

 

[Len Rum]

1. Safer to assume the opponent are not idiots or irrational. It is really very unlikely. At UEFA one of the biggest issues is that City appear not to have fully engaged and therefore UEFA could argue they acted rationally based on what was before them. I don't think it is established that UEFA was irrational - certainly CAS never made such a statement.
2. I don't agree that the PL rely on utmost good faith - the allegations are just very serious.
3. I don't agree the related party issue is part of the PL's case - it is both subjective and time barred in the absence of fraud or concealment. Furthermore they could easily have gone after related party in 2023s accounts if that was the issue.
4. Mancini and Fordham do not justify a case on their own
5. Yes PL's target is much broader but that suggests more, not less rational thinking.

To Leicester...

Why doesn't Fordham justify a case on it's own?

 

[KS55]

- irrelevant really
- irrelevant
- sloppy but irrelevant
- I think the allegation is that City concealed matters so should also suffer the consequences of that in all rules if proven

I don't think any of these play to the question of ignoring legal advice on the City charges. But as I said, perhaps I am just naive.

No, they don’t but they illustrate that the PL does not always follow best practice. I’m not sure they are stupid but they are buffeted by rough seas to which they do not react consistently.
They have effectively accused us of massive fraud, yet offered a settlement. How normal is that? Did they say we had to own up to something that is in the realms of fantasy?

 

[malg]

I've obviously been asleep and not following this thread. When the fuck did it become 130??

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

- sloppy but irrelevant

Not sure it could be characterised as irrelevant as to the competence and efficacy of the charging authority, which has to potentially bear some relevance to the weight and likelihood of success of the charges.

If the charging authority can’t get the pleadings right, how can they be expected to have the wherewithal to get the charges home?

If you read some PoCs that were manifestly wrong would you, ceteris paribus, view it as irrelevant to the prospects of success in a claim?

If someone can’t get the basics right and then it’s usually a sign of wider failings.

 

[oldius]

I've obviously been asleep and not following this thread. When the fuck did it become 130??

It always was.

 

[slbsn]

Not sure it could be characterised as irrelevant as to the competence and efficacy of the charging authority, which has to potentially bear some relevance to the weight and likelihood of success of the charges.

If the charging authority can’t get the pleadings right, how can they be expected to have the wherewithal to get the charges home?

If you read some PoCs that were manifestly wrong would you, ceteris paribus, view it as irrelevant to the prospects of success in the claim?

If someone can’t get the basics right and then it’s usually a sign of wider failings.

well we don't know if the pleadings or whatever they call it was also wrong. Perhaps the PL's press team had an earlier version or something. It is sloppy but in the context of a 6 year process (so far) I would not give it the credence you suggest. They clearly have very capable lawyers both in the PL and, particularly, externally.

Again, I may be being naive on this one too and giving the other side far too much credit.

 

[slbsn]

Why doesn't Fordham justify a case on it's own?

Old issue, very questionable there is any case, can hardly be said it was hidden when it was previously called Manchester City Image Rights, had its office at the Etihad and certain City execs as directors but in fairness I haven't spent much time on it over the years - just never looked very significant to me.