PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

Seems legit.

At least we now know the delay in the release of the detail of the panels findings was due to them first having to be approved by 'artetas red army' on twitter.

 

[the blue panther]

If something in a contract/agreement is unlawful, the court can throw-out the whole contract/agreement once it is shown to be tainted with illegality. The agreement can be regarded as void; it is set aside and the parties are restored to the positions which pre-existed the agreement.
If one tribunal has declared a part of the rules as unlawful, City will be looking to drive their bus through that unlawful hole again. The result this week was focused on APT's, but, how many other such holes can City identify? That remains to be seen, but, after the APT farrago this week, I'm sure there's a sense of "Pannick" setting in with the P.L. and their lawyers.

 

[Blue_Lightsaber]

If it is true that APT is null and void because of the unlawfulness around soft loans, then the same can be challenged for the whole FFP framework presumably. This is an absolutely vital point to clear up imho and I am not surprised City are not going to let the PL off the hook easily.

While I do think it could actually happen that a tribunal doesn't want to hear "new evidence" if it's rigged (remember how we worried about 3 pl appointed stooges before)..

I do think we have to kick and scream and make them look biased and then we can officially start a new case of them charging us with bogus rule violations.. and the rules not being legal in the first place..

Basically the APT thing.. give the PL enough rope or in this case the kangaroo court enough rope and they hang themselves.

 

[melrose40yarder]

All this speculation is bad for everyone.
If we win excellant.If we lose so be it whatever they do to my club i will be there as i was in the 80s and 90s.We all know deep down this is the final attempt of Arsenal,Liverpool and the scum of trying to stop us thats right those 3 have have 3 titles in a combind 65 yrs big clubs my arse.
Im all for competition so lets try this everyone can spend what they want which is no guarantee of success,look at the money Spent by Arsenal,Utd and Chelsea.
Everything is wrong with the Premier League rules,reffing var no screens at certain grounds.Lets get back to the score being what matters not who has the best lawyers.Would it not be great to see the team that wins the championship have a chance of emulating Forest in the 70s.It would be good if Sheff Weds,Sunderland,West Ham etc all got taken over and became competitive no team has a divine right to be in the top 4 Imagine a scenario like in the 70s where City,Utd,Everton,dippers,Arsenal,Derby,Leeds were all up there then add in Newcastle,Weds,Sheff U,Sunderland were there too dont think the red shits would allow it though.They dont want or want to allow competition i deliberately left Spurs out make your own conclusions.Sorry for rambling but they are trying to wipe mine and others memories of the last 50 yrs away.

 

[Blue_Lightsaber]

All this speculation is bad for everyone.
If we win excellant.If we lose so be it whatever they do to my club i will be there as i was in the 80s and 90s.We all know deep down this is the final attempt of Arsenal,Liverpool and the scum of trying to stop us thats right those 3 have have 3 titles in a combind 65 yrs big clubs my arse.
Im all for competition so lets try this everyone can spend what they want which is no guarantee of success,look at the money Spent by Arsenal,Utd and Chelsea.
Everything is wrong with the Premier League rules,reffing var no screens at certain grounds.Lets get back to the score being what matters not who has the best lawyers.Would it not be great to see the team that wins the championship have a chance of emulating Forest in the 70s.It would be good if Sheff Weds,Sunderland,West Ham etc all got taken over and became competitive no team has a divine right to be in the top 4 Imagine a scenario like in the 70s where City,Utd,Everton,dippers,Arsenal,Derby,Leeds were all up there then add in Newcastle,Weds,Sheff U,Sunderland were there too dont think the red shits would allow it though.They dont want or want to allow competition i deliberately left Spurs out make your own conclusions.Sorry for rambling but they are trying to wipe mine and others memories of the last 50 yrs away.

If we're judged on the facts.. I don't think we'll lose.

But if we're judged on the Red Cartel's PL version of legality and illegality.. then we have a problem.

That's the bottom line..

 

[dickie davies]

If something in a contract/agreement is unlawful, the court can throw-out the whole contract/agreement once it is shown to be tainted with illegality. The agreement can be regarded as void; it is set aside and the parties are restored to the positions which pre-existed the agreement.
If one tribunal has declared a part of the rules as unlawful, City will be looking to drive their bus through that unlawful hole again. The result this week was focused on APT's, but, how many other such holes can City identify? That remains to be seen, but, after the APT farrago this week, I'm sure there's a sense of "Pannick" setting in with the P.L. and their lawyers.

Wasn't the Leicester decision around the same time as ours, but our decision was delayed being made public for 12 days

 

[StillBluessinceHydeRoad]

If it is true that APT is null and void because of the unlawfulness around soft loans, then the same can be challenged for the whole FFP framework presumably. This is an absolutely vital point to clear up imho and I am not surprised City are not going to let the PL off the hook easily.

It is worth challenging the limitation on owner investment which appears to be a flagrant breach of the law. This would, of course destroy the central feature of the regulations which restricts revenue to certain streams which (used to be) dominated by the cartel. Personally I'm not opposed to some form of cost control but not one so obviously in the interests of a cartel.

 

[BlueFurn]

Wasn't the Leicester decision around the same time as ours, but our decision was delayed being made public for 12 days

It took Masters and Co twelve days to write the little statement that made them look like bigger twats than everyone thought they were.
Infant school may have been closed for a few days before the office junior scribbled that crap.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I haven't had much free time recently but I had a quick look at Brighton & Arsenal's accounts. Brighton declare Bloom's loans as an RPT but the Arsenal accounts I looked at don't. I think there's a holding company accounts I didn't look at so I'll do that tonight.

But if Arsenal aren't declaring owner loans as an RPT then surely they're not submitting accurate accounts, which is what we've been charged with, and where the charges specifically mention related parties.

Update to this.

I've checked Arsenal's ultimate UK-based holding company and Arsenal do not declare the loan from KSE as a Related Party Transaction.

One of the driving forces behind the introduction of APT rules was the belief by the cartel that Etihad was a related party to City (it isn't) and we weren't declaring it as such. So why don't Arsenal declare their owner loan as an RPT (which it is) and why aren't the PL charging them with a failure to provide accounts properly prepared under current reporting standards?

Further update: They don't have to declare any RPT which is solely within the group of companies, but they should state that in their accounts, which they don't.

 

[johnny crossan]

Martin Samuel in concert with noises off

The Game

The Game is a football podcast from The Times, hosted by Gregor Robertson and Tom Clarke. Join them for insightful discussions, expert analysis, and the latest updates in the world of football. A must-listen for football enthusiasts and fans of quality sports journalism.

www.thetimes.com