PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

MillionMilesAway said:
This one, I think:

The duty to cooperate - questions arising from the Man City v UEFA decision - LawInSport

This article is written by Björn Hessert, University of Zurich. By way of disclosure, Björn works as a research assistant for Prof. Dr. Ulrich Haas, who was one of the three CAS arbitrators in the Manchester City FC v UEFA proceedings. Björn would like to stress that he himself was not...
www.lawinsport.com www.lawinsport.com
Click to expand...
Thanks for sharing. Interesting article. Author says he was not influenced by Prof Haas, but happens to be his Research Assistant. Therefore, there clearly is a potential conflict of interest which undermines the objectivity of his article. Don't think he mentioned UEFAs leaks to the press during their investigation of City. Quite a significant omission which clearly impacted City's approach. Hopefully the PL process can be sorted out before next season.
 
Centurions said:
Are they not highly detailed scouting reports including personal details and character reports at the very least? They're not going to just be "he's really fast but can't defend for toffee" reports.
Click to expand...

Well yes, but it wouldn't be private information from the individuals that the club has a duty to protect, surely? I suppose it will have been gathered from the club's own sources? I suppose it could have included details about current club players for reference. The club would then have a duty of care?
 
Bez said:
Thanks for sharing. Interesting article. Author says he was not influenced by Prof Haas, but happens to be his Research Assistant. Therefore, there clearly is a potential conflict of interest which undermines the objectivity of his article. Don't think he mentioned UEFAs leaks to the press during their investigation of City. Quite a significant omission which clearly impacted City's approach. Hopefully the PL process can be sorted out before next season.
Click to expand...

It was clearly bullshit dressed up to make it look like the CAS decision wasn't his boss's fault. Difficult to take it any other way ....
 
SSBlue said:
But that example refers to breaking the law.

City haven't been accused of breaking the law, we've been accused of breaking arbitrary rules relating to funding sources and disclosure.

For example a lot of posts are citing our accounts being audited as proof of innocence. The auditors were proving that our accounts were legal, they had no remit to check that they complied with specific PL rules.
Click to expand...
We are not accused of breaking the law but some expert posters on here say what we are accused of amounts to false accounting / fraud it would logically have tax implications.
 
Centurions said:
Pinto (or whoever) hacked our email servers, not Liverpool's.

He also hacked Benfica's, Bayern Munich's(?), Doyen Sports (hence the Ronaldo alleged rape emails), a bank in the Cayman Isles, the Portuguese police team investigating him plus one of the judges in his case and many, many others.

That doesn't mean he's hacked the entire world.
Click to expand...
Still begs the question why we are the only ones feeling the affects of his hack
 
WRicko said:
We are not accused of breaking the law but some expert posters on here say what we are accused of amounts to false accounting / fraud it would logically have tax implications.
Click to expand...
For charges such as sponsorship income, passing an audit doesn't make any difference. The auditors see payments from Etihad and check the tax etc on that. They're not going to investigate where Etihad got their money from.

Accusations such as third party payments to Mancini might have tax implications. Although more for Mancini than the club itself.
 
Bloominmarvellous said:
I agree that PL had to look into it once uefa raised it but I do think the PL actually feel rules have been broken. Following the arbitration case in 2021 city had to supply info (I assume they did) so the PL could quite easily have said they saw the documents and their is no case to answer.

That they have progressed this and the considerable risk of claims if they lose does make me feel this way. For clarity I am not saying city are guilty just that I don't think the PL would have rushed into it with what could be at stake.
Click to expand...

We did not supply the extra info they were demanding.

Our stance all along is this is a phishing expedition and they get only what is relevant.

The Premier League gave it their best swing, hence why it needed to be kicked up to an independent panel, because they had run out of road.

Ask yourself why both sides wished for the ongoing dispute to remain private, the Premier League have plenty to hide in this and it's a win win situation for them in many ways.

Being seen to act tough by those clubs who seek to do us the most harm, whilst also trying to nip the independent regulator in the bud.

The timing of the charges was not an accident and had the ultimate bonus of dragging us in to the mud.

The Premier League have washed their hands of this and any negative outcome for them.
 
tolmie's hairdoo said:
We did not supply the extra info they were demanding.

Our stance all along is this is a phishing expedition and they get only what is relevant.

The Premier League gave it their best swing, hence why it needed to be kicked up to an independent panel, because they had run out of road.

Ask yourself why both sides wished for the ongoing dispute to remain private, the Premier League have plenty to hide in this and it's a win win situation for them in many ways.

Being seen to act tough by those clubs who seek to do us the most harm, whilst also trying to nip the independent regulator in the bud.

The timing of the charges was not an accident and had the ultimate bonus of dragging us in to the mud.

The Premier League have washed their hands of this and any negative outcome for them.
Click to expand...

They might THINK they have done a Pontius Pilate on this but in our fans eyes and others they haven't. They are the ones charging us driven by the usual suspects. All the negativity rebounds on them if we win. They will be seen as weak and heavily influenced too much by the red shirts, in short presiding over a competition run by those same red shirts, not an independent fair body. I sincerely hope we have enough ammunition in our locker to fetch the whole stinking pile of shit down.
 
SSBlue said:
For charges such as sponsorship income, passing an audit doesn't make any difference. The auditors see payments from Etihad and check the tax etc on that. They're not going to investigate where Etihad got their money from.

Accusations such as third party payments to Mancini might have tax implications. Although more for Mancini than the club itself.
Click to expand...
It’s inflating income / revenue changing owner funding to income / revenue. It affects corporate tax and changes the nature of the accounts.

With regards to Mancini him mostly yes but also us would affect NI etc

And this is before we look at the image rights issue which would also affect NI and other things no doubt
 
paulchapo said:
They might THINK they have done a Pontius Pilate on this but in our fans eyes and others they haven't. They are the ones charging us driven by the usual suspects. All the negativity rebounds on them if we win. They will be seen as weak and heavily influenced too much by the red shirts, in short presiding over a competition run by those same red shirts, not an independent fair body. I sincerely hope we have enough ammunition in our locker to fetch the whole stinking pile of shit down.
Click to expand...
Multiple likes for this comment !!!!!!!
 
WRicko said:
It’s inflating income / revenue changing owner funding to income / revenue. It affects corporate tax and changes the nature of the accounts.

With regards to Mancini him mostly yes but also us would affect NI etc

And this is before we look at the image rights issue which would also affect NI and other things no doubt
Click to expand...

Bites lip ......
 
tolmie's hairdoo said:
The timing of the charges was not an accident and had the ultimate bonus of dragging us in to the mud.

The Premier League have washed their hands of this and any negative outcome for them.
Click to expand...

But don't we have a legal standing to sue them for "a sustained and prolonged effort over 15 years to damage our brand" and drag us through the mud?

Or is the system just bent?
 
Last edited:
tolmie's hairdoo said:
We did not supply the extra info they were demanding.

Our stance all along is this is a phishing expedition and they get only what is relevant.

The Premier League gave it their best swing, hence why it needed to be kicked up to an independent panel, because they had run out of road.

Ask yourself why both sides wished for the ongoing dispute to remain private, the Premier League have plenty to hide in this and it's a win win situation for them in many ways.

Being seen to act tough by those clubs who seek to do us the most harm, whilst also trying to nip the independent regulator in the bud.

The timing of the charges was not an accident and had the ultimate bonus of dragging us in to the mud.

The Premier League have washed their hands of this and any negative outcome for them.
Click to expand...
The Premier League haven’t washed their hands of this at all.

The media have already made it clear that if we don’t get found guilty then the PL aren’t fit for purpose.

I’d say the current situation is the complete polar opposite of the PL washing their hands of it.
 
Prophet of Doom said:
The Premier League haven’t washed their hands of this at all.

The media have already made it clear that if we don’t get found guilty then the PL aren’t fit for purpose.

I’d say the current situation is the complete polar opposite of the PL washing their hands of it.
Click to expand...

How can the media make the premier league find us guilty though?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top