Very good point
PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules
- Thread starter ayrshire_blue
- Start date
Rory Bluelow
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 4 May 2014
- Messages
- 2,906
Regarding our owner, I can’t say I love him either - but hugely admire the way he has delivered on his promises and what he brought to City and Manchester as a whole. He chose our club and we are so lucky that he did. Just look at those clowns in Trafford for a contrast. Great post by the way !
Outstanding post. Everyone with a brain knows FFP is just there to limit investment for the 'smaller sides' and keep the established elite at the top of the food chain.
CAS relied very heavily on witness statements but on the flip UEFAs expert witness was never afforded access to the full records . I can’t remember the quote but it was something like he had seen the tip-off the ice berg but not what went on below.
CAS weren’t in a position to test the witness statements because UEFA didnt have evidence to back up the emails although when the accounts were particularly made available the amounts and timing of payments was in accord with the second email.
People are reading too much into the CAS judgment. For 1 it’s in accord with Swiss Law and 2 it, ad it’s something I keep repeating UEFA didn’t pursue to the end the fact that some documents were never disclosed they in effect gave up on that approach had they focused on that it’s highly likely that CAS would have come to the same conclusion as UEFA.
I just can’t see how City will even remotely be able to defend full non disclosure( if that’s what happened) when there was a HC ruling on the matter and indeed a PL arbitration panel has likewise confirmed contractual obligations
When the PL and City disclose in full the evidence they will rely on at the tribunal other than the hearing where that evidence will be examined it’s unlikely that even if it goes to a further hearing that either party will be allowed to reduce any further info.
FantasyIreland
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Oct 2008
- Messages
- 64,698
No he didnt,he simply offered a cautious opinion.
We need to sort the squad out soonest,go big and future proof it for the next 5 years with top class young talent,and then,if a transfer ban occurs.....we can fill in any minor blanks by way of the academy.
bobbyowenquiff
Well-Known Member
It's a strange one though. Because I can't think why we would ever co-operate with people who are essentiaally running a smear campaign against us. We know that the PL are targeting us because we are the only club supporting an independent regulator, we know that at least nine clubs tried to get us banned even before the UEFA case had been considered by CAS, we know the PL sent the charging details to the media before we knew about it, we know the PL is on a fishing expedition going back 14 years. Even someone accused of murder in a criminal prosecution has the right to remain silent!
What this whole saga shows is that the PL is totally unfit to act as a regulator. There is no chance of us getting a fair hearing. Other clubs are still briefing against us to the media and so are some people from UEFA (like Leterme). The press stories are full of anonymous quotes from Directors from other clubs. The process is just a trial by media with a very biased media as judge and jury.
Ballosteve
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 2 Dec 2018
- Messages
- 716
Thanks. This is what I remember. I haven’t yet seen updates. Portugese authorities launched three enquiries in autumn 2221.Spot on, seems quite a number of clubs /people caught up in it all, this males fpr an interesting read.
How Football Leaks Is Exposing Corruption in European Soccer
While Rui Pinto sits in jail, his revelations are bringing down the sport’s most famous teams and players.www.newyorker.com
BillyShears
Well-Known Member
Interesting take. I am the opposite. Going into CAS I was very apprehensive because I had the feeling that there was a groundswell of opinion that regardless of the rights and wrongs of what we'd done, we needed to be banned simply because of the Football Leaks revelations. Everything was 'fresh' in that moment and the time lapse between UEFA's announcement and the CAS case was months.
Things are hugely different this time round and the major difference is time. We're looking at a process that is going to take upwards of 18 months, so by the time we're at something approaching a decision from the panel, we'll be well into 2025 if not 2026. Glazers will be gone. FSG will be gone. The landscape in the league will be totally different. The power dynamics also totally different.
You also have to look at the charges themselves. Whilst UEFA pointedly accused City of inflating sponsorships, which in many respects COULD have been argued just with the Football Leaks documents, PL charges are of false accounting. FL even on their face, can only 'prove' things from the relevant years of the leaked documents. The PL is relying on a discovery process where City will hand over documents which I presume they think will make us more guilty. That's naive beyond some belief. The PL have to prove false accounting all by themselves. The discovery process won't help them IMO.
I've seen the commentary around a potential whistleblower, and it feels remarkably far fetched to me. A whistleblower, at best can testify to what they saw, or were asked to do. But that is one person. On the other side City will be able to wheel out dozens of people, and dozens of documents and filings which attest to the veracity of their accounts. It is an enormous ask of any 'independent panel' to start accusing high ranking board members and executives all of lying based on the word of what would surely be a disgruntled employee. But in any case, I think it is unlikely that a whistleblower even exists, because if they'd had one, this wouldn't have taken 4 years to get here, and it would be all over the media that the league had a whistleblower.
Finally, there is the actual reasoning for why we've been charged now and in the manner that we have. My personal opinion is that the charges are the punishment. The idea here is simply to inflict maximum reputational damage onto the club. I reckon after 4 years they've realised "we'll never be able to prove this case, but if we bin it we'll forever be panned for not trying" so they've gone with the big long charge sheet knowing that it is now the panel's job to find us innocent but the smears will stick in the meantime.
The politicking at play is on another level to anything we've seen since Abu Dhabi came in.
If ppl would stop badgering me….
Here’s the possible sanctions that could be imposed.
Commission’s Powers
W.50.
Upon finding a complaint to have been proved the Commission shall invite the Respondent to place any mitigating factors before the Commission.
W.51.
Having heard and considered such mitigating factors (if any) the Commission may:
W.51.1. reprimand the Respondent;
W.51.2. impose upon the Respondent a fine unlimited in amount and suspend any part thereof;
W.51.3. in the case of a Respondent who is a Manager, Match Official, Official or Player, suspend him/her from operating as such for such period as it shall think fit;
W.51.4. in the case of a Respondent which is a Club:
W.51.4.1.
W.51.4.2. W.51.4.3.
W.51.4.4.
suspend it from playing in League Matches or any matches in competitions which form part of the Games Programmes or Professional Development Leagues (as those terms are defined in the Youth Development Rules) for such period as it thinks fit;
deduct points scored or to be scored in League Matches or such other matches as are referred to in Rule W.51.4.1;
recommend that the Board orders that a League Match or such other match as is referred to in Rule W.51.4.1 be replayed; and/ or
recommend that the League expels the Respondent from membership in accordance with the provisions of Rule B.6;
W.51.5. order the Respondent to pay compensation unlimited in amount to any Person or to any Club (or club);
W.51.6. cancel or refuse the registration of a Player registered or attempted to be registered in contravention of these Rules;
W.51.7. impose upon the Respondent any combination of the foregoing or such other penalty as it shall think fit;
W.51.8. make any such penalty conditional, including imposing the penalty unless a defined action is taken by the Respondent within a defined period of time;
W.51.9. order the Respondent to pay such sum by way of costs as it shall think fit which may include the fees and expenses of members of the Commission; and/or
W.51.10. make such other order as it thinks fit.
tolmie's hairdoo
Well-Known Member
I am on the same page, certainly in terms of a high burden of proof, but I don't think it is as simplistic as just wanting to taint the brand, which they are happy to throw in to the mix at this stage?
They are accusing various auditors and sponsors of also being complicit in fraud.
That's opening up battle lines on so many fronts, aside from City and our own reputational damage.
I am maybe crediting someone at the Premier League with a modicum of legal intelligence, but they have left an open goal for BDO, Etihad and others to go after their own pound of flesh if we are cleared?
Big Dave Watson
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 25 Aug 2009
- Messages
- 2,417
Yes I understand it was an opinion but it came as a bit of a shock given his previous comments, that’s all I am trying to say. Talk of transfer bans gave it a feeling that we would fall foul of the more serious charges. It just seemed like he was tempering the flow somewhat and keeping our expectations in check, albeit rather alarmingly.
He also mentioned in an earlier post about finally silencing the accusers but a transfer ban would surely be at odds with this as it would insinuate that we were guilty?
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
I’m obliged.
BillyShears
Well-Known Member
That's sort of my point. The league have basically opened a can of legal worms, and then thrown at an independent panel and said "go ahead and prove this" knowing full well they can't. What are the panel going to do, bring in all the auditors, accountants, etc and make them give evidence? The scale of what they have to prove, as has been widely reported, is way bigger than can be realistically expected of a 3 man panel doing a part time job.
This only goes one way for me, and that is a quiet statement on the league's website in two years time saying that nothing has been proven and the league have decided to move on and not appeal the decision.
FantasyIreland
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Oct 2008
- Messages
- 64,698
I believe they have flung so much shit that some is bound to stick,and the probability is that it wont be enough to deduct points or worse but it may be such that it will see us receive a fine and/or a transfer ban.
We can cope with either,we just need to ensure we do what we need to before any sanctions are implemented.
tolmie's hairdoo
Well-Known Member
Stop being a cynic ;)
No agenda, City's stance, coupled with my own Reds under the bed paranoia!
W.51.10 sums uo these wankers.
tolmie's hairdoo
Well-Known Member
I don't see it going that long mate, too much outside noise now for City also not to be demanding a quick resolution, certainly with irrefutable evidence on hand.
Brett Sinclair
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Apr 2015
- Messages
- 874
He's another Arsenal season ticket holder!.. bleedin' marvellous!
Lord Pannick: Meet the lawyer representing Boris Johnson and Manchester City
How a Lord and lawyer for Boris Johnson came to be celebrated by football fans.www.bbc.co.uk