PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[norman]

This is a quote from the “legal expert” referred to in the Ziegler article in today’s Times.
“Manchester City will have hope that the Leicester case shows an independent panel looking at the Premier League rules in forensic detail rather than doing what is expedient.”
Not sure where to start but on what legitimate basis could a so called independent panel do “what is expedient” rather than decide the issue on the basis of the evidence in detail.
It suggests that the EPL consider the panel is there to do its bidding and explains the surprise and disappointment expressed in their statement following the Leicester appeal verdict.
As others have said the governance of the EPL looks more and more flawed.

 

[slbsn]

I disagree. All the premier league needs to get around the 6 years limitation period is a new email or document saying something strange about the contracts they they didnt know about before. They might have that since they have pretty much all our documents. That will give the PL the door to try and prove whatever they are suggesting but proving it to a high bar might not be possible for them anyway. I've got little hope of anything being time barred for this case apart from the Fordham stuff.

Except that is simply untrue. Not how limitation works at all.

 

[slbsn]

They haven't admitted the offshore payments that is a separate matter. They've admitted another accounting error but what that is no-one knows.

Also not correct.

 

[slbsn]

This is a quote from the “legal expert” referred to in the Ziegler article in today’s Times.
“Manchester City will have hope that the Leicester case shows an independent panel looking at the Premier League rules in forensic detail rather than doing what is expedient.”
Not sure where to start but on what legitimate basis could a so called independent panel do “what is expedient” rather than decide the issue on the basis of the evidence in detail.
It suggests that the EPL consider the panel is there to do its bidding and explains the surprise and disappointment expressed in their statement following the Leicester appeal verdict.
As others have said the governance of the EPL looks more and more flawed.

It is a nonsense quote

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

It is a nonsense quote

This would be far more apposite:

“Manchester City will have hope that the Leicester case shows an independent panel looking at the Premier League rules in forensic detail rather than doing what is expedient.”

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

There's always been an issue with the framing of the PL rules, particularly the finance ones. One example is the requirement to submit "accurate accounts". There is no such concept in accounting though. There is the 'true and fair' requirement but nothing specifying accuracy. Of course, you can equate the two concepts but if you take the issue of Etihad sponsorship, if we receive £60m from Etihad, and record £60m revenue then you could argue that's 'accurate', regardless of the source of the money.

However if we receive £60m and we know £50m of that came from Sheikh Mansour, yet record it as all coming from Etihad as sponsorship, then that could potentially infringe the concept of 'true and fair'.

It's like the offside and handball laws; the more they tweak and piss about with them, the further they get away from their key objectives and the more the potential for interpretation or misinterpretation.

 

[BerkshireBlue]

On what grounds will the PL be able to remove the limitation on the Mancini issue?

If they find an email or document suggesting we've co cered something up or paid something we shouldn't have done

 

[BerkshireBlue]

I recall reading a while ago that Stefan seemed to think that whatever they’ve admitted to is similar to some of the things that we’re alleged to have done so they could be in deep shit even before the offshore payments are considered.

Yeah similar but different

 

[BerkshireBlue]

Except that is simply untrue. Not how limitation works at all.

It's exactly how it is written I'm afraid. The law is pretty clear in it's wordings

 

[BerkshireBlue]

Also not correct.

I'm not being funny but you have no idea what they've admitted, I have no idea what they've admitted. Some journalist has uncovered some paperwork that they suggest shows offshore payments. There's no way you can say that these two things are one and the same. So a one sentence answer dismissing my post without giving any proof or logical reason doesn't wash I'm afraid