PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[argyle]

When City are found innocent, can we all please sue the PL for damages, deformation etc?

There are no grounds to sue the PL.

They will argue they have followed procedure and I've seen/heard nothing that City believe they haven't.

It will also be hard to argue that this has materially damaged City when we're on for 4 league titles in a row, have just won the treble and are posting record revenue and profits.

 

[oakiecokie]

There are no grounds to sue the PL.

They will argue they have followed procedure and I've seen/heard nothing that City believe they haven't.

It will also be hard to argue that this has materially damaged City when we're on for 4 league titles in a row, have just won the treble and are posting record revenue and profits.

Unfortunately oh so true argyle.

 

[Paladin]

Is the period when they can go back from February 2020 which is when the investigation was opened up or when the charges were laid out three years later?

I believe limitation is measured from the date the charges are made.

 

[Metalartin]

Although I'm no expert, my understanding(from listening to others, like Stefan) is that the main charges aren't based on the PL's version FFP which were introduced as late as 2013. They seem like charges of dishonest accounting, concealment, false reporting etc. I don't think the Mancini, image rights or non-cooperation accusations come under the FFP regulations either. It's all in the regular ruleset.

There are some references to adhering to UEFA's FFP regulations though which were introduced in 2011.

The PL have to govern their regulations in accordance with English law and a 6 year limitation would normally apply. However, that is not the case for accusations of concealment, which is how they are able to go back so far.

I think the PL has already explored any time barring issues before they brought the charges and City's side has already done the same. That doesn't mean they have sufficient evidence to a comfortable satisfaction though. Also, if City do have irrefutable evidence, then even if the PL think they've got something now, they will know they don't quite quickly at the arbitration.

Hopefully anyway.

For me, my mind keeps coming back to the fact that UEFA claimed they had proven their allegations to a comfortable satisfaction in accordance with Swiss law. They seemed to have briefed the press: "There is no way we have got this wrong, our AC panel are law experts". They tried to penalise a club on that basis("we've proven it") and we only found out they were wrong/lying thanks to CAS. CAS were the ones who got slated, when it definitely should have been UEFA, that should not be forgotten either.

Having no route to a different body/court is still a concern for me, I understand these are professionals but we were told the same of the CFCB. As I alluded to above, none of those who worked on the CFCB arbitration suffered reputational damage for bringing an incorrect verdict, that I saw.

If City feel the commission isn't independent after all, or that they aren't giving the proper due process, then City are pretty much screwed. If UEFA were allowed to select another panel of arbitrators, I have no doubt they would have backed their buddies on the first verdict by default.

The independent regulator can't come soon enough if only for piece of mind. Hopefully it(no route to take it elsewhere) turns out not to be an issue at all, we'll have to wait and see.

 

[Bald fraud]

Although I'm no expert, my understanding(from listening to others, like Stefan) is that the main charges aren't based on the PL's version FFP which were introduced as late as 2013. They seem like charges of dishonest accounting, concealment, false reporting etc. I don't think the Mancini, image rights or non-cooperation accusations come under the FFP regulations either. It's all in the regular ruleset.

There are some references to adhering to UEFA's FFP regulations though which were introduced in 2011.

The PL have to govern their regulations in accordance with English law and a 6 year limitation would normally apply. However, that is not the case for accusations of concealment, which is how they are able to go back so far.

I think the PL has already explored any time barring issues before they brought the charges and City's side has already done the same. That doesn't mean they have sufficient evidence to a comfortable satisfaction though. Also, if City do have irrefutable evidence, then even if the PL think they've got something now, they will know they don't quite quickly at the arbitration.

Hopefully anyway.

For me, my mind keeps coming back to the fact that UEFA claimed they had proven their allegations to a comfortable satisfaction in accordance with Swiss law. They seemed to have briefed the press: "There is no way we have got this wrong, our AC panel are law experts". They tried to penalise a club on that basis("we've proven it") and we only found out they were wrong/lying thanks to CAS. CAS were the ones who got slated, when it definitely should have been UEFA, that should not be forgotten either.

Having no route to a different body/court is still a concern for me, I understand these are professionals but we were told the same of the CFCB. As I alluded to above, none of those who worked on the CFCB arbitration suffered reputational damage for bringing an incorrect verdict, that I saw.

If City feel the commission isn't independent after all, or that they aren't giving the proper due process, then City are pretty much screwed. If UEFA were allowed to select another panel of arbitrators, I have no doubt they would have backed their buddies on the first verdict by default.

The independent regulator can't come soon enough if only for piece of mind. Hopefully it(no route to take it elsewhere) turns out not to be an issue at all, we'll have to wait and see.

100%! We definitely need the regulator in and hope that they really are independent. When all this is done it will be the best part of a decade of work from the prem to kill us! There’s no way we are coming out of this unscathed. It’s been there mission to do us for years!

 

[Dirty Harry]

I can't say I've ever discussed it with anyone, and nobody has ever brought it up with me either.

I'm not worried about it at all, and I've no idea how this thread got to over 3000 pages.

The question got me thinking too, and outside of my step father (once I managed to distract him from the reach around with his new red dipper friends), there isn’t anybody, and all he knew was what he’d read/was reading in the papers.

Kinell,I need to change my friends,that's to highbrow for a pleb like me.

Too (the second one :-D).

 

[Kinkys Left Foot]

Fucking Jordan again chuntering about Citys perceived procrastination when we are a defendant clearly in dispute with an aggressive plaintiff.

Somehow at our behest we can hugely expedite this hearing as we have previously expressed a wish to "have it dealt with quickly", even when the timelines are being laid down by the independant commission. He states this facetiously of course as if that somehow insinuates deliberate delay by City or its advocates which in turn of course points to "guilt" or "avoidance".

Then because he sued Dowie and thinks he knows the civil law procedures extrapolated an appeal process, because we've been found in breach of course, by which we somehow appeal to CAS and the process lasts until 2030!

Now previously I thought he was being deliberately provocative in his statements for triggering listeners as is talkshites modus operandi. However its now quite clear he does in fact know fuck all about our case or the hearings process and is as ill informed as your average Arsenal fan, just says it without that fucking awful narf Landan accent.

 

[halfcenturyup]

100%. You can only be charged for any offence based on the laws that existed at the time of the “offence”. Otherwise we’re into the world of arbitrariness and that is the antithesis of the rule of law.

So this is my theory: the PL asked for access to third parties to verify the accounting of Mancini, Etihad, Etisalat, Aabar and Fordham and we told them to fuck off, because once that door is opened they can ask anything. this would explain i) why there are 115 breaches covering everything for every year (because we haven't provided the evidence that satisfied their requests) ii), the change in the PL rules to make it compulsory to provide information from third parties (iirc), iii) the breaches of non-cooperation despite the club's protestations that they have complied with all ("lawful") requests, and iv) the reported challenge the club made on applying new rules to previous periods.

Then it all makes a modicum of sense. It also means the club just have to provide the panel our evidence, including appropriate third party evidence of our choosing, to counter the alleged breaches. Meaning the club stays in control of the cooperation process.

Just a few thoughts.

 

[eyalluvitt]

There are no grounds to sue the PL.

They will argue they have followed procedure and I've seen/heard nothing that City believe they haven't.

It will also be hard to argue that this has materially damaged City when we're on for 4 league titles in a row, have just won the treble and are posting record revenue and profits.

Definitely damaged our reputation as an organization, we could nave turned over 800m instead of 700m due to the Constant smearing of our name globally in every press outlet despite not actually proved to have done anything wrong. They fail to prove guilt we should demand 100m compo and they pay our more expensive than Everton’s legal costs of our 600 lawyers

 

[adelaideblue]

if we are found guilty of anything, why cant we go back to the CAS - surely thats what it is for?

 

[Brightwell’s left peg]

When City are found innocent, can we all please sue the PL for damages, deformation etc?

Deformation…That sounds painful mate. What was deformed and did you need to take meds. Not promising, but you might get to claim the cost of those back at the least if you can pin it on the PL. @gordondaviesmoustache might even want to get involved in arguing that one.

 

[cheekybids]

You seem to be basing your propositions on the assumption that a KC won't take a case they are going to lose. I guess you have more faith in the legal profession than I do. There are many reasons why a lawyer may take such a case, but most of them revolve around continued access to money.

Anyway, we will see soon enough, I suppose.

As an aside, though. What sort of evidence do you think the PL may have found from a review of the club's accounting and other records (and only the club's accounting and other records) that may bring them to their conclusion that for more than a decade the club has filed annual accounts that don't give a true and fair view?

A reminder from Lord Pannick about taking on an almost certain losing case……

People think maybe I can sprinkle some magic dust on their cases – but some cases aren’t winnable. I spend much of my time saying, “Stop, you’ll lose.” Then I hear the words, “This is a matter of principle.” It’s the client’s prerogative. My role is to contribute to justice by making sure that the client’s side is fully argued.’

The essence of advocacy: Lord Pannick QC

In a rare interview, Lord Pannick QC, the barrister at the centre of some of the most critical legal debates this country has seen, reflects on his own role in the theatre of law, celebrates the art of persuasion and discusses his upcoming Hamlyn Lectures. Interview by Anthony Inglese CB

www.counselmagazine.co.uk

I would imagine for every KC that wins, there is a loser.

 

[mrtwiceaseason]

There’s no public statement by either City or PL re Autumn 2024 for the hearing do who started all this?

Is it a leak or wishful thinking or just another case a KFA making something up to see who runs with it????

IMHO it's been put out there to distance ourselves from the Everton case and get the red shirts back in their box for a while .the timing of this story is very convenient to me .

 

[M18CTID]

Anyone else finding that you can't get more than four or five sentences into a conversation about City's charges before the other party exposes that they don't have a clue what they're on about?

That post earlier about us being in a 'post-truth society' really hits home. They've seen some bloke on Twitter say that 'City only got off on a technicality last time' and they all believe it.

"You only got off at CAS as all the charges were time-barred" usually happens in the first sentence when engaging with mouth-breathing fuckwits on social media!

 

[M18CTID]

I can't say I've ever discussed it with anyone, and nobody has ever brought it up with me either.

I'm not worried about it at all, and I've no idea how this thread got to over 3000 pages.

Twatter's usually the place for it but if you don't do Twatter you might not know. I would say that when engaging with opposition fans in person, I don't think a single one has ever brought it up. And I include United and Liverpool fans in that.

 

[dickie davies]

The verdict has been out for months, Guilty

 

[cheekybids]

"You only got off at CAS as all the charges were time-barred" usually happens in the first sentence when engaging with mouth-breathing fuckwits on social media!

My response is….

“So how did they find us guilty if their own rules stipulate the charge was time barred?”

 

[DATOIA]

So how this will end (my bet..)

City gets cleared..

Pep becomes England manager at the end of 2024/2025 season..

Fucking politics..

 

[ganganvince]

if we are found guilty of anything, why cant we go back to the CAS - surely thats what it is for?

Because the Prem rule book doesn't allow an appeal to CAS my understanding is
Case examined by PL to see if any case to answer,
Handed over to independent tribunal
Case heard and judgement made
Potential to appeal to a new tribunal
Only further opportunity is to take the case to UK courts but not to appeal sentence only to challenge process or breach of UK statute.
I await to be corrected.

 

[mattcity5]

There are no grounds to sue the PL.

They will argue they have followed procedure and I've seen/heard nothing that City believe they haven't.

It will also be hard to argue that this has materially damaged City when we're on for 4 league titles in a row, have just won the treble and are posting record revenue and profits.

Disagree here. I would say there are no grounds to sue the PL that we know of.

For me, there are big questions around the appointment of Masters as PL executive. If two specific clubs were allowed to decide on his appointment then is that right? Also, as he was fourth choice, I would want to know why the top 3 turned the role down. Was there anything being asked if them that they didn't agree with?

Regarding material damage it's tricky like you say. But if we had nothing hanging over us and had been praised all over by the media, would that have helped us sign Bellingham or Rice? Nobody knows their true reasoning for turning us down - could doubts over any punishment have influenced them?