PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[domalino]

Why not? The allegations cover at least 9 years of accounts and the accusations imply a degree of fraudulent accounting. Every line of those accounts will need to be scrutinised, every single transaction that's controversial will need to be forensically analysed and debated by the respective lawyers. And that's before the panel get down to discussing their conclusions and reaching a verdict, let alone the almost inevitable appeal if we're found guilty! If the PL seriously think that can be done in a couple of months they're even more amateurish than I already thought.

That's not whats going to happen. The scrutiny of every line in the accounts you describe has already happened over the last 4 years. You're describing an investigation, not a trial.

What will happen at the Judicial panel is the PL will present the things they've found to be breaches. ie Mancini's contract with Al-Jazira or whatever it is.

Then there will be an argument about whether that was allowed or not. When it's ruled on, it will clear about 30 charges and they'll move onto the next thing.

And there's not going to be an appeal. I think the lawyers in the press and social media have pretty much confirmed that; the only recourse for appeal is if there's procedural impropriety by the panel during the case.

CAS took 6 months. Even if we assume the PL is slow moving I can't see how it lasts 4 years.

 

[Coatigan]

If we come through this free and innocent, we have the likes of Newcastle, Chelsea and maybe a Qatar backed Rags hunting us down and throwing cash about like there is no tomorrow, you think the Execs want that?

I can't possibly know. But I now get what you meant.

 

[City Man]

I still can't quite believe this timeline.

It made sense when Stefan was talking about appeals going up to the high courts, but for a PL panel? It just doesn't really hold up.

I don't think it can be overstated how bad it would look for the Premier League to be in 2027 arguing about things that happened in 2008 from an investigation that started in 2018.

I can't make sense of this timeline either. It seems to have arisen in people's minds in the mistaken belief that this matter could be contested through the courts and/or that because the investigation took years, the adjudication will as well neither of which is right.

That said, while I haven't read all of the stuff on this thread, I don't recall seeing anyone picking up on what I find a bit strange in the City statement:

“The Club welcomes the review of this matter by an independent Commission, to impartially consider the comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence that exists in support of its position".

What and where is this body of irrefutable evidence? Is this something that the PL have and which they don't think is irrefutable so they've proceeded with the charges? Or is it other evidence that City possess but have not provided to the PL but maybe were going to do if the apparently sudden decision to publicise the charges hadn't pre-empted it? If I recall City have a bit of form during the CAS thing where I got the impression they weren't exactly as forthcoming with information as they might have been (maybe because of tactics) and is the same thing happening here?

I also have a recollection (perhaps wrong) that City made mention of "irrefutable evidence" in the CAS case. Not sure if anyone remembers this?

 

[blue44]

My good friend Simon Hill, who is still fighting the good City fight in Oz, sent me this brilliant letter, which was published in an Australian newspaper yesterday.


Dear Sirs,

Whatever the outcome of the legal battle between Man City and the Premier League, we should not lose sight of the risible rules that govern football investment ("Man City facing relegation for 115 breaches of rules, Feb 7"). The case for a regulator has been made on the basis that asset stripping owners must be stopped from ruining clubs and communities. Yet, in Manchester, we have two models.

At Manchester United, owners have championed extractive investment on an industrial scale, with a leveraged buyout and no investment in the ground, facilities or training - never mind the locality or community.

At Manchester City, the owners have spent their own money, not just on the club and players but on a whole infrastructure, which has transformed East Manchester and extended well beyond football.

The Premier League is oblivious to the first model and desperate to stop the second. I hope City win its case, but whatever the upshot there is something deeply wrong about the governance of football.

Alun Francis
Manchester.


Alun - whoever you are, I salute you.

thats from the Times yesterday.

 

[TheThirdDeano]

Would love to be a fly on the wall during that meeting today! Going to be a laugh I reckon

 

[lancs blue]

The scrutiny has already happened over the last 4 years.

The commission haven't scrutinised anything yet.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Will City know the details?

Good question. It seems like, initially, we only knew what the PL published. But we'd have to know the specifics to enable us to mount a defence.

 

[Rory Bluelow]

Nobody knows.

Ducker from the telegraph saying the premier league independent commission do not have the power to relegate City.
They have the power for Expulsion ,points deduction or fine .
If expelled we would have to apply to join the football league 2 ,he goes on to say they could refuse us .

Pointless conjecture from Ducker with maybe a bit of wishful thinking. No way would we get expelled for historic misdemeanours. Decent click bait I suppose.

 

[zandvoort blue]

Sky reporting on the new plans for a European Super League and Spunkbubble Solhekol stating it`s selfish and all based on greed. You 2 faced twat, you`ve been banging on about MCFC being guilty over the past few days of breaches of Premier League rules, the same rules that are also based upon a "selfish and greedy" cartel.






NB - the term Spunkbubble used with L.Gallagher`s permission

 

[Dodge]

thats from the Times yesterday.
View attachment 68563

Ooops my bad, he sent it from Oz, so I presumed it was in one of their daily papers.
Good spot & thanks for the correction.
Still a great letter though.