PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[burning blue soul]

Foul smell of racism in this nonsense. The religion of Levy, Bernstein and Bernstein is 100% irrelevant to this complete nonsense conspiracy theory.

Agreed, Levy's religion is money. Same as all the other owner/operators.

 

[supercity88]

Yeah, your 2nd paragraph is what I was getting at, in that if we thought we'd be found guilty, then we'd likely accept that settlement knowing that we would be found guilty anyway.

It would seem a monumentally stupid decision, to stick your fingers in your ears and hope that you'd manage to come out successful.

I think we knew the probabilities prior to the case, and are clearly more than confident that we can come out with a better outcome than the original settlement, assuming there actually was one.

The best lawyers work on probabilities. They don't wing it, that's why they cost the big bucks. They know all the procedure all the case law all the loopholes and they know, within reason, chances of success as a result. And City's owners are far too shrewd to ignore counsel opinion and refuse a settlement that could have been advantageous.

I also don't think for a minute they would be endorsing or supporting fraudulent activities within the club, even more so when there was immense scrutiny around us from the get go.

They've invested in the club and others to build a significant footballing enterprise worthy of substantial investment and delivering significant returns. The outside investment we have secured will have undoubtedly seen the respective parties share financial particulars as well. There's a multitude of reasons why the charges are so unlikely to be proven.

We aren't a behind closed doors outfit or a start up building a secretive empire. We are talking global business and investment with huge resources and they do things by the book.

 

[Sky Blue Thinking]

Tangential I know but here's top twat/Harris showing he might not be as bright as he thinks he is.

Lots of Arsenal goons making similar points.

The amount of time the ball is in play obviously has no bearing on the amount of injury time there js. The ball is in play for longer as a result of there being more injury time...I hope his analysis of the charges is equally flawed!

Also doesnt take into account how much possession we had. If arsenal had more possession they could have wasted more time with dead balls, throw ins etc.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

Also doesnt take into account how much possession we had. If arsenal had more possession they could have wasted more time with dead balls, throw ins etc.

It's also 30 seconds for each substitute...

 

[slbsn]

The MSM blackout on the APT case, almost inevitably means we've had some significant success, now believed to be subject to a PL appeal.

FWIW, APT not realistically appealable

 

[foggy1974]

Howdon video ???

 

[HorlockofFiretopMountain]

Utd's UEFA FFP? Fined after UEFA disallowed the 40 million COVID costs. Not UEFA's fault it was ignored by the press.

Utd's PL FFP? 40 million COVID costs would have been reviewed at a high level. I think the costs have to be audited. Nothing really to see here unless you believe in conspiracy.

Utd's share costs? Same as above, would have been reviewed at a high level and audited presumably. They shouldn't have been included in the club's accounts anyway, but I can't see any rule for allowing them as deductible costs. Bit weird.

Liverpool hacking? Settled between the parties.

Liverpool 50 mill Stanley Park costs? Again, would have been reviewed at high level and probably audited. Seems way too high, though. Also a bit weird.

Chelsea off-books payments? Being investigated. It takes the PL a while, bless them.

Chelsea asset sales? No rule against it in the PL so accepted, but will be disallowed by UEFA. But stupid of the PL. Surprise, not.

Strange player sales at year end? Will be reviewed for arm's length under the threshold payment rules but not sure the PL has the strength for more conflict. Threatened with "good faith" rule, but Leicester ruling may scupper that. Anyway, we will see when the accounts for 2023/24 are reviewed by the PL.

Did I miss anything?

Re: the Utd UEFA FFP failure...should they not be subject to the same allegation as levelled against City.... from the PL statement, "requiring a member club to comply with UEFA’s regulations, including UEFA’s Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations, namely:
(a) for Season 2013/14, Premier League Rule B.14.6; and
(b) for Seasons 2014/15 to 2017/18 inclusive, Premier League Rule B.15.6."

 

[alexmcity]

Some obscure guy on the internet tweeted it, it then got propagated by users on here until its a real thing now. Like everything else really.

It's as real as the cease and disist letters...That is, it's most certainly bollocks.

 

[kingn6]

We don't have a natural LB at the club

Jordan

 

[34yearsandstillgoingstrong]

Also doesnt take into account how much possession we had. If arsenal had more possession they could have wasted more time with dead balls, throw ins etc.

Reviewed the 2nd half on City+ : the "shithousery" starts 64th min. - Raya 2m10s lost ; 70th - Havertz 1m ; 72nd - Calafiori 1m30s ; 82nd Rice ( booked time wasting ) 50s ; 85th Martinelli 50s ; Gabriel 1m20s ( up to 90m ) Add on 2mins for substitutions = a minimum of 9 mins. There were other occasions when Tarquins " sat down for a rest ° and the hapless Oliver let play go on.Of course the persistent disruptions prevented City ever getting up "a head of steam" So extra time - 7 mins. Gabriel still down "injured" and play starts at 91.40 . Raya delays a goal kick ; Jesus booking 30s and City score at 97.20 in effect only 5 mins ( of the allocated 7 mins ) played. The game does kick off but then Haaland gets involved in a skirmish and Oliver blows for time. Might have been interesting if Oliver had allowed City the extra 2 mins !

 

[halfcenturyup]

Some obscure guy on the internet tweeted it, it then got propagated by users on here until its a real thing now. Like everything else really.

You think @Prestwich_Blue read it on Twitter and then decided to share it with us on here?

 

[halfcenturyup]

Re: the Utd UEFA FFP failure...should they not be subject to the same allegation as levelled against City.... from the PL statement, "requiring a member club to comply with UEFA’s regulations, including UEFA’s Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations, namely:
(a) for Season 2013/14, Premier League Rule B.14.6; and
(b) for Seasons 2014/15 to 2017/18 inclusive, Premier League Rule B.15.6."

No.

Edit: Sorry that was a little abrupt. I think the allegation in respect of breaching UEFA regulations is about providing them incorrect information in bad faith, rather than failing FFP. It's not the PL's job to assess UEFA FFP violations, it's their job to provide information to UEFA.

Whataboutisms like this make us look as desperate as Harris/Magic Twat look when they refuse to accept there could be any another context around the leaked emails than their interpretation. That's why I tried to include as many of them in my original post. There are plenty of holes in the arguments of rival fans to exploit without asking what about this and what about that, imho.

 

[CheethamHillBlue]

What I most remember about that day was that both teams agreed to not have a sponsors name on their shirts, to mark the occasion.
Then, out comes the GPC, in full chewing gum mode, as described, alongside Sven and the players, all holding hands with a child. City players had kids with the rags away kit whist the home side obviously had them in a home kit.
Never one to miss an opportunity, every child had a kit with AIG emblazoned on the front. Really got to me did that and, truth be told, still does..



View attachment 131575

And the City fans were IMPECCABLE.

 

[slbsn]

The best lawyers work on probabilities. They don't wing it, that's why they cost the big bucks. They know all the procedure all the case law all the loopholes and they know, within reason, chances of success as a result. And City's owners are far too shrewd to ignore counsel opinion and refuse a settlement that could have been advantageous.

I also don't think for a minute they would be endorsing or supporting fraudulent activities within the club, even more so when there was immense scrutiny around us from the get go.

They've invested in the club and others to build a significant footballing enterprise worthy of substantial investment and delivering significant returns. The outside investment we have secured will have undoubtedly seen the respective parties share financial particulars as well. There's a multitude of reasons why the charges are so unlikely to be proven.

We aren't a behind closed doors outfit or a start up building a secretive empire. We are talking global business and investment with huge resources and they do things by the book.

These decisions are fine balances. Barristers look at probabilities and litigation risk. Sometimes in the final days before a hearing, they obsess about the weaknesses/weak spots of the case/arguments and prefer a client to settle - even more so when their financial risk is insulated by a nice, non refundable brief fee!

The skeleton arguments (written openings) that they will have received in the week before the hearing also crystalises concerns and case understanding giving the parties a clearer view of the direction the opposing side will take.

So clients always need to be mindful of taking the barrister's view but setting it against their own educated view and commercial reality. In short, sometimes clients hear the barrister but still don't or can't agree a settlement.

In short, City's owners may well have accepted Counsel's general view but been unable to get to a satisfactory settlement. Happens in almost every case that gets to a trial.

 

[HorlockofFiretopMountain]

No.

Edit: Sorry that was a little abrupt. I think the allegation in respect of breaching UEFA regulations is about providing them incorrect information in bad faith, rather than failing FFP. It's not the PL's job to assess UEFA FFP violations, it's their job to provide information to UEFA.

Whataboutisms like this make us look as desperate as Harris/Magic Twat look when they refuse to accept there could be any another context around the leaked emails than their interpretation. That's why I tried to include as many of them in my original post. There are plenty of holes in the arguments of rival fans to exploit without asking what about this and what about that, imho.

I get the clutching at straws point, and I would say this is more about equitable application of the rules. Rule B.15.6 (2017/18) states that clubs have to comply with "the statutes and regulations of UEFA". The regulation on "good faith" appears to be specifically directed at other Clubs and the League (both which have specific definitions, for which definition of the League did change subtly around 2013).

UEFA have resolved their case against Utd and the Premier League don't see a need for further action. I suppose what I am asking is, if it is accepted that this is reasonable, should it not also be the case for City?

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

And the City fans were IMPECCABLE.

Which disappointed the media enormously, much to their shame (as if the media would ever feel shame!).

 

[KS55]

Which disappointed the media enormously, much to their shame (as if the media would ever feel shame!).

At one point, there was a big noise outside the stadium like a bang. Some of the press tried to attribute that to City fans, without any evidence of course.

 

[ganganvince]

I get the clutching at straws point, and I would say this is more about equitable application of the rules. Rule B.15.6 (2017/18) states that clubs have to comply with "the statutes and regulations of UEFA". The regulation on "good faith" appears to be specifically directed at other Clubs and the League (both which have specific definitions, for which definition of the League did change subtly around 2013).

UEFA have resolved their case against Utd and the Premier League don't see a need for further action. I suppose what I am asking is, if it is accepted that this is reasonable, should it not also be the case for City?

Not if the Premier League are saying the Information we supplied to to them which they subsequently passed on to UEFA was misrepresented.

 

[supercity88]

These decisions are fine balances. Barristers look at probabilities and litigation risk. Sometimes in the final days before a hearing, they obsess about the weaknesses/weak spots of the case/arguments and prefer a client to settle - even more so when their financial risk is insulated by a nice, non refundable brief fee!

The skeleton arguments (written openings) that they will have received in the week before the hearing also crystalises concerns and case understanding giving the parties a clearer view of the direction the opposing side will take.

So clients always need to be mindful of taking the barrister's view but setting it against their own educated view and commercial reality. In short, sometimes clients hear the barrister but still don't or can't agree a settlement.

In short, City's owners may well have accepted Counsel's general view but been unable to get to a satisfactory settlement. Happens in almost every case that gets to a trial.

It's really hard to judge in this case, because whilst it's playing out behind closed doors there's immense public scrutiny. Any settlement is a sign of weakness from the PL and an admission of guilt from City. And without knowing what that was it's hard to make a true judgement. There could be a number of commercial reasons why City couldn't rather than wouldn't accept a settlement - in terms of an admission of guilt. And you'd expect the PL, aware of the optics, would have offered something that had a substantial impact on our chances of success this season.

There doesn't appear to be much difference with what's on the table here in terms of charges, and what UEFA levelled at us. And it's always positive to have case law, or in this instance, the CAS verdict, to quote and utilise as part of our defence this time around. I don't believe there's anything additional the PL have other than the hacked emails, although I could be wrong.

If you're turning up to an independent panel with the same accusations, even if rules and legislation differ, it's helpful as I said to point to the CAS verdict and provide their opinion on inflated sponsorships/sources of income etc.

I just cannot see the club settling regardless of what was on the table, when the public perception is that we're guilty. That might not change even with a "win" at the independent panel in terms of your social media content from rival fans, but it will have to from the media and anyone employed to comment or they open themselves to a legal battle of their own.

 

[Vienna_70]

Something struck me this morning, while out walking the dog.

The papers are all so sure of our guilt, an yet, they keep linking us with top quality players, such as Musiala.

Very strange.