PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Burtonblue said:
Unfortunately I think you maybe correct.
Failure to cooperate will be their minimum excuse. Expect that to translate into a hefty fine to line their lurid coffers.
I would be very surprised if they can prove anything of the rest we have been charged with. We are innocent until conclusively proved guilty.
Click to expand...
SO you think that the our owners will invest £25bn in the UK 2 weeks ago, but then just roll over and accept being called cheats because Richard Masters and the Premier League says so! Our owner spent more building his own F1 track than he has spent on City, I guarantee he wont cooperate with the Premier League
 
ChicagoBlue said:
At its heart, this is a racist, anti-competitive action taken on behalf of a few clubs who are butt hurt they’re not winning the big trophies.

They got a whiff of malfeasance and they’ve run with it to the natural conclusion of what they’re able to do.

Now, it’s up to a so-called Independent Commission, which is under pressure to find fault. Whether they have sufficient actual, hard evidence is literally unknowable by Bluemooners, but we don’t seem to trust the process any more than others who want us killed dead, which tells you it might actually be a decent process (?).

Regardless, under the rules, we are going to need a good reason why we should not be found guilty of the the non-cooperation aspect of these charges. Without some very good reason, and the communications to back that up, it’s hard to see that not sticking, in some form or another…much like CAS.

As for the more serious charges, they are piecemeal attempts to snag us on one or more offenses, including “under the table” payments to Staff and potentially false, misleading, or even fraudulent payments of monies to evade FFP. Those charges come with a very high bar and will need bulletproof evidence to prove, lest someone be left wide open to countercharges from the club for tarnishing the business image of not only a global business, but the members of the royal family they smear. Here, I think we are on firmer ground.

So, where does that leave City?

One expects there will be SOMETHING we are found guilty of, probably the non-cooperation. We may also, perhaps, get ensnared by the Mancini side hustle, but they’ll need documentary proof that was an inside deal. Beyond that, Khaldoon would have to be pretty sure there is not only no documentary evidence or proof of malfeasance or he is going to be in a precarious position, especially given his other, much larger and more visible, position within the “family business.”

In short, it’s a Clash of the Titans, and for the sake of all concerned at the PL, if you go after the King, you’d better make certain you kill him dead. I’m not sure they can, and that could get very, very messy for a few of the people involved.

COME ON, CITY!!!
Click to expand...
Correct mate, they didn't realise how serious our owners are. The Shiek has transformed East Manchester and his family invests billions in the uk infrastructure every year!

Jim Ratcliffe, lives in Monaco and appeases united fans because he has had had some pictures made of a new stadium!
Our new stand and hotel will be built before they even appoint an Arcitect!
 
I'm Blue said:
I’ll pretty much guarantee we’re getting done for non cooperation whatever the outcome.
Click to expand...

It's the most likely outcome imho, maybe with some small sanction on the disclosure of Toure image rights (we don't really have enough information to come to a conclusion on that one). But we have no visibility on the non-cooperation allegations. We do know it will be different to UEFA non-cooperation, though, so it's not a gimme for the PL. Have to wait and see on that one.
 
halfcenturyup said:
It's the most likely outcome imho, maybe with some small sanction on the disclosure of Toure image rights (we don't really have enough information to come to a conclusion on that one). But we have no visibility on the non-cooperation allegations. We do know it will be different to UEFA non-cooperation, though, so it's not a gimme for the PL. Have to wait and see on that one.
Click to expand...
Someone's gotta pay for the PL Christmas party : )
If I remember rightly the non cooperation stems from the PL trying a fishing expedition.
We asked what they needed and they said everything, we refused.
 
vincent said:
@halfcenturyup - hey mate, do you expect the panel will have already reviewed all the case material and any supporting evidence prior to the start of the hearing?
Click to expand...

@slsbn Can you help the guy out with this one. I have no idea.

I know the parties have to provide all their evidence up front, but I have no idea how seriously it is looked at before the actual hearing ....
 
I'm Blue said:
Someone's gotta pay for the PL Christmas party : )
If I remember rightly the non cooperation stems from the PL trying a fishing expedition.
We asked what they needed and they said everything, we refused.
Click to expand...

We don't know the extent of their requests. Iirc, a section Y tribunal at the end of 2020 said something like the club had to provide certain documents and make enquiries of certain third parties. That was upheld by the court, so I think it is fair to assume that the club had to comply with that. Providing is clear. Making enquiries less so.

It is undoubtedly no coincidence that, in 2022 the PL rules tightened the requirements for obtaining evidence from third parties as part of an investigation (or, at least, the guidance was updated).

So I guess it boils down to i) what does "make enquiries" mean? Does it mean get answers, or does it just mean tell the PL the external parties told them to fuck off, and ii) can the PL apply new rules /guidance to an open investigation (remember right after the allegations were referred, we heard that the club were challenging this very point?).

My guess is still that the club was refusing to hand over information from third parties in the form that the PL wanted until at least, as they said in their statement, they can be "impartially considered" by an "independent commission". Much the same as with UEFA / CAS. Why change when it has worked before?

If any of this breaches PL rules on cooperation is anyone's guess, of course. I am just not so sure it is as clear-cut as some are thinking.
 
Betterdeedthan red said:
I wonder what the half wits behind all this think about it now.
They obviously rushed into it without thinking about it properly.
What did the chairman say.
People in glasshouses and all that.
Picked a fight with the wrong club.
Bet they wish they could back track
Click to expand...
As the PL execs fall one by one, the cry goes up from the Etihad: One, two, three, four in a row.
 
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
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.