PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[halfcenturyup]

Guidance is only guidance and new guidance can't possibly be retroactive. In any event, City deny they haven't been forthcoming and the rules are pretty wide in their original form which was part of the reason they lost the High Court stuff.

"Manchester City FC is surprised by the issuing of these alleged breaches of the Premier League Rules, particularly given the extensive engagement and vast amount of detailed materials that the EPL has been provided with."

I suppose the question is: can they can ask for external information after the summer of 2022, when the rule was introduced, and expect the club to provide it even if it relates to previous seasons?

And the paragraph about extensive engagement is cleverly written, but it doesn't say the club fully co-operated?

I don't think there is much doubt the PL asked for some information the club thought was outside the rules and told them to fuck off. So they added this guidance to counter that. Too coincidental otherwise?

 

[bakerdave76]

I just asked AI if prick Harris and magic hat are the same person.
Based on the context provided, it is revealed that Nick Harris is the person behind the pseudonym “Magic Hat.” This conclusion is drawn from various pieces of evidence, including shared vocabulary and common use of uncommon words, similar time stamps in their chats, and Harris’s admission that he was at Wembley on the same day as Magic Hat’s alleged presence there. There is no indication that Harris has done anything illegal or unethical under this alias, but rather, he has used it to express criticisms of Manchester City Football Club. The motivation behind using a pseudonym appears to be an attempt to maintain anonymity while voicing strong opinions.

 

[Plays By Sense Of Smell]

Not sure when. A year ago? The PL purport to bind third parties by saying all sponsorship etc agreements should be expressly subject to PL Rules. I’m not sure this would stand up in court due to Privity of Contract rule. In any case, if a third party refused to offer the requested data, it seems a bit weird for the PL to punish a club for non co-operation.

This has that feeling of ‘if you’re going to apply your own private rules to established lawful principles, at least check or accept that your rules may not take account of, or may in fact, contradict them.’
Look before you leap.

Otherwise you’re creating a whole heap of pain, confusion and turgid, pointless learning exercises for yourselves and everyone else.

Looks like the PL took a gamble and expediently jumped into to the very deep end of the ‘retrospective learning curve’ pool - without checking that it might not be a pool, but an ocean - and that there might be some big and very specialised predators in it.

Hence the continual rewrites and attempted shifting of goalposts.

Calvinball springs to mind…

 

[slbsn]

I suppose the question is: can they can ask for external information after the summer of 2022, when the rule was introduced, and expect the club to provide it even if it relates to previous seasons?

And the paragraph about extensive engagement is cleverly written, but it doesn't say the club fully co-operated?

I don't think there is much doubt the PL asked for some information the club thought was outside the rules and told them to fuck off. So they added this guidance to counter that. Too coincidental otherwise?

Disputes over the extent of disclosure are routine. That said the PL rules gave them very wide powers. The guidance was clearly intended to strengthen the hand of the PL further but it is just guidance. The underlying rule didn't materially change as far as I recall. So I fully expect the PL to say they were not given everything they wanted and City to deny they didn't cooperate. The IC will have to decide that too.

 

[Bloominmarvellous]

I suppose the question is: can they can ask for external information after the summer of 2022, when the rule was introduced, and expect the club to provide it even if it relates to previous seasons?

And the paragraph about extensive engagement is cleverly written, but it doesn't say the club fully co-operated?

I don't think there is much doubt the PL asked for some information the club thought was outside the rules and told them to fuck off. So they added this guidance to counter that. Too coincidental otherwise?

You ask a good question.

Does the UK court ruling mean that the PL are within their rights to ask for external info from the start of the PL, start of the investigation in 2018 or from the point of the ruling (mid 2021). It is not clear to me.

I suppose it depends on if this ruling just confirms the right full stop or from a particular date.

 

[Pontypool Blue]

I just asked AI if prick Harris and magic hat are the same person.
Based on the context provided, it is revealed that Nick Harris is the person behind the pseudonym “Magic Hat.” This conclusion is drawn from various pieces of evidence, including shared vocabulary and common use of uncommon words, similar time stamps in their chats, and Harris’s admission that he was at Wembley on the same day as Magic Hat’s alleged presence there. There is no indication that Harris has done anything illegal or unethical under this alias, but rather, he has used it to express criticisms of Manchester City Football Club. The motivation behind using a pseudonym appears to be an attempt to maintain anonymity while voicing strong opinions.

Which AI bot did you use?
I just asked the same question you did and got this answer :
" if prick Harris and magic hat are the same person"
Yes - and he is **** too!

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

Seriously @Mods can we sideline this Magic Hat bollocks? Its gone down a rabbit hole and those people should be there not here.

 

[BlueRockape]

Seriously @Mods can we sideline this Magic Hat bollocks? Its gone down a rabbit hole and those people should be there not here.

Sick of wading through shit off theas two ( one )
I love the information given by brighter people

 

[Keeper!]

Seriously @Mods can we sideline this Magic Hat bollocks? Its gone down a rabbit hole and those people should be there not here.

Whoever this magic top hat is we are feeding him with clicks and attention and in doing so he is benefiting his ego and more importantly his wallet.

Don't feed the troll and don't finance him in anyway.

Just simply ignore.

The only quote worth any note is from our CEO, "irrefutable evidence" so wait and see if that is true.

 

[Son of Merv]

You ask a good question.

Does the UK court ruling mean that the PL are within their rights to ask for external info from the start of the PL, start of the investigation in 2018 or from the point of the ruling (mid 2021). It is not clear to me.

I suppose it depends on if this ruling just confirms the right full stop or from a particular date.

We don't know because "the judgment does not state the nature of the documents and information requested or the significance of those documents and information to the wider investigation".