PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Bellamy's Caddy]

following what Pep said last year regarding all this, he said if he has been lied to he won't be friends and gone the day after.

Pep's still here

Yep and Pep proactively brought up that letter in his press conference last week. The Mancini stuff has been the source of allegations for a long time, it's nothing new. Pep was here for the CAS stuff and rigorously defended the club, as presumably he's satisfied with the explanations he's received.

Pep may not be here by the time the enquiry takes place, but only because it looks like his contract will have expired. The media have been desperate for him to leave since before he arrived (same now with Haaland). He was never going to be a lifer at City and I'm not sure those one club managers of the 80s and 90s even exist anymore.

Whatever happens with Pep and City won't be related to our battle with the Premier League. But that narrative doesn't generate clicks or sell papers.

 

[OB1]

No - the parties agreed to the rules freely having taken advice (or least being able to).

Define freely ! (No need to actually define it).

 

[BringBackSwales]

There’s nothing illegal in Manchester City paying Roberto Mancini a wage, then another company paying him a wage as well. If all the correct tax, national insurance has been accounted for. It’s not in the spirit of the rules but it’s not illegal.

Similar if Mansour wanted to invest money into Etihad. Etihad then pays City funding for sponsorship and naming rights to the stadium. How do the premier league get the paper trail externally from what City show in their accounts? They will have to demonstrate that and do Etihad even have to open up their books to the premier league if it’s not them in the dock?

If the Etihad deal isn’t at fair market value, how come Arsenal’s sponsorship with Emirates is around the same number. This is Arsenal who haven’t won a premier league for nearly two decades. If there’s tax avoidance going on here the premier league and inland revenue need to throw to book at City and it becomes a criminal case. Why has it taken them so long to deem accounts from 2009 wrong? As another poster highlighted ‘it’s all a bit woolly this from the Premier league’.

I think what you’ve described wouldn’t be illegal from a tax and accounting standpoint, but in terms of PL rules it may well be; I imagine it would depend on what that remuneration was for

 

[mcfcpride]

4 years?

 

[blue b4 the moon]

Can we appeal?, Can we not appeal? Blah, Blah, Blah!

The reality is that whatever that rule book says to one person, it does not necessarily mean the same to another. Remember, this is the organisation who couldn't even get the charges correctly listed for a heralded press release.

When it comes to points of law, I would put my money on our legal team, rather than defending the work of some office clerk at the Premier League, who, at the league's inception, probably just cut and pasted most of that rule book from a copy of her local weight-watchers group.

Remember too, City have been here and done it previously. The Premier League haven't and it's their arses that will be squeeking when we get to the business wnd of this process, not ours!

If push comes to shove we can always appeal about not being able to appeal.

 

[domalino]

Extract from a BBC article about Kompany’s scepticism of the criticism:

“The charges against City, who were taken over by the Abu Dhabi United Group in 2008, relate to a period between 2009 and 2018 - during which the club won all six of its Premier League titles.”

Despite three of the titles being after.

The mistake there is that the charges actually go up to 2023.

 

[Newman Noggs]

You can argue it all day. It will not be an irregularity in terms of the Arbitration Act

Thank you for your patience in dealing with us.

I hope you won't find it tiresome if I ask you something that may seem naive, but, given what could be an existential threat to the club/company's business, as a "nuclear option", do you consider that there could there be any legal recourse with regard to FFP as a breach of competition law or restraint of trade ?

I take the point that we "signed up to" the PL rules but a) as a shareholder we voted against it and b) football was a business, and we were in it, long before the FFP rules were introduced so, at the point we were outvoted by the other shareholders, there was no alternative but to "sign up" or cease trading c) the shareholders change every year and, indeed, some of those who voted for it are no longer members. Maybe it is voted on every year and renewed ?

I seem to recall, we voted against something recently on the basis that our advice said it was illegal but I can't recall what it was. It was adopted by the PL anyway.

 

[halfcenturyup]

I'm not sure if the 115 charges thing is giving a distorted impression of the size of the case.

I said yesterday reading through the breaches, the Mancini thing could be responsible for 30 of them. Failure to cooperate post 2018 is 36. If @Prestwich_Blue is right about Fordham/image rights being the 2012/13 to 2017/18 player remuneration issue, that's over 40.

So I don't think this is 115 breaches that need to be litigated seperately, it's more like half a dozen issues which spread across multiple rules and seasons.

Spot on.

 

[Agueroooo9320]

The clause that tries to prevent access to High Court. It's what I'd call unfair if it was in a contract but you are the lawyer, I'm just a simple accountant.

the clause says the decision of the panel is final. it does not however say we cannot go to the court if we are wronged in the process of making the conclusion and if the panel does not follow its own rules.

 

[AdamMarrett]

The more I speak to people surrounding City, the less I am fretting.

It's as if we already know we will be more than fine.

I'm not going to invest much more angst into this, as everything else is just partisan and misinformed bollocks.

Our summer transfer window could make Chelsea's January one resemble a car jumble.

Outside of the cartel clubs benefit from this something utterly stinks about the entire thing. It beggars belief the Premier League could release a statement that was so flawed in the first place. For a multi billion pound organisation that was a amateur move, and embarrassing. You could almost bet your bottom dollar our lawyers seized on that as soon as possible. It was a free hit for lawyers who are paid more in a week then I earn in 4 bloody years.

They clearly briefed the media before hand that Martin Ziegler had his piece and opinions out within a minute of the statement being released, plus the other buffoons piling on after the original statement release from Simon Jordan and the other shills.

The more I've read about it, and things that have happened since something is well and truly off. We all know the white report is due out, and the UK government's want for a regulator for the Premier League etc and certain clubs and the Premier League's desire to avoid that as it will even the playing field off field for everyone, something certain clubs don't want. Then all of a sudden there's Qatari interest in the Rags and posturing from them saying they'll do exactly as we have spending wise can't be a coincidence.

The hints and inside word from yourself and others which are greatly appreciated hint that we as a club know it as well. This feels like a fight that is a lot more then us vs the Premier League, there's a lot more at stake.

Of course I could be wrong but for me something stinks about the entire thing.