PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Matt Diablo said:
www.standard.co.uk

Man City lawyer claims human rights issues would ‘distract’ football watchdog

Lord Pannick’s comments came as the House of Lords continued its line-by-line scrutiny of the Football Governance Bill.
www.standard.co.uk www.standard.co.uk
Click to expand...

That’s a fucking disgusting racist hatchet job. Anyone who knows about modern human slavery in the supply chain means you would be looking at all goods made & supplied & then follow that chain to audit the people & conditions. So let’s start with the US owned Nike football they play with that’s manufactured in Indonesia by independent factories. If you can’t fix the match ball then don’t even contemplate anything else. Panick is basically saying we’d look at every part of every billionaires income & find an abuse. I’m sure if I looked at every share in my fund there would be a clear failing.

You can always tell when it’s a hatchet job by using his defence of Green & Johnson. Neither of which had anything to do with human rights abuse. Perhaps a more relevant case would be defending gay serviceman or any other human rights cases.
 
FanchesterCity said:
It's not.
The PL rules operate differently which was one of the many differences between PL and UEFA. That's why we are here still waiting for an outcome.

We all want it to be an open and shut case, but there are two sets of highly paid legal teams who have only just completed their representations. We now have to wait months for a judgment.

We all want a judgment that says City didn't put a single foot wrong. What we fear is that with enough attempts to hit us, one or two punches might land, and that will be enough to formally claim 'City cheated'. As much as we don't like that, it's a possibility.
Click to expand...
You're right that they operate differently but PL rules still have to be governed in accordance with English law(as opposed to Swiss law). Where it's 6 years. Unless it's a case of concealment. Then it goes from the date of discovery, not the date of the breach. That's the simplified/layman's version I remember anyway.

They are clearly saying this was concealed. So time barring wont be an issue and the main accusation isn't that we broke FFP/PSR rules. False accounting has always been illegal, in football and elsewhere.
 
FanchesterCity said:
It's not.
The PL rules operate differently which was one of the many differences between PL and UEFA. That's why we are here still waiting for an outcome.

We all want it to be an open and shut case, but there are two sets of highly paid legal teams who have only just completed their representations. We now have to wait months for a judgment.

We all want a judgment that says City didn't put a single foot wrong. What we fear is that with enough attempts to hit us, one or two punches might land, and that will be enough to formally claim 'City cheated'. As much as we don't like that, it's a possibility.
Click to expand...
I think that just about every other club in the PL could well be on the end of 'one or two' landed punches. Try naming one where honesty, fairness or ethics are high up enough to gain public admiration. It doesn't exist in business, let alone this game, and in a culture where even senior Royals or clergy are not immune from public outing then there is no reason to believe that the other 19 EPL clubs are paragons of virtue either.
 
Metalartin said:
You're right that they operate differently but PL rules still have to be governed in accordance with English law(as opposed to Swiss law). Where it's 6 years. Unless it's a case of concealment. Then it goes from the date of discovery, not the date of the breach. That's the simplified/layman's version I remember anyway.

They are clearly saying this was concealed, same as UEFA were. So time barring wont be an issue and the main accusation isn't that we broke FFP/PSR rules. False accounting has always been illegal, in football and elsewhere.
Click to expand...
That's not entirely true.
Sports organisations have exemptions that allow them to have members agree on different rules that CAN conflict with statute.
A prime example of this is competitions based on gender or age. Specific legal medications excluding you from competition etc.
We already have investment limitations in sport that do not apply to other businesses. The recent ruling on APT didn't rule that putting limits on investments was illegal, it ruled that not applying similar rules to loans was unfair.
 
FanchesterCity said:
That's not entirely true.
Sports organisations have exemptions that allow them to have members agree on different rules that CAN conflict with statute.
A prime example of this is competitions based on gender or age. Specific legal medications excluding you from competition etc.
We already have investment limitations in sport that do not apply to other businesses. The recent ruling on APT didn't rule that putting limits on investments was illegal, it ruled that not applying similar rules to loans was unfair.
Click to expand...
This is a simple matter of limitation periods in arbitration. Unless you can think of a valid reason it should be longer for sport than elsewhere, why would it be? They have to have a valid argument, like the examples you gave. It's a pointless argument anyway IMO, the very nature of the accusation implies the club did something to disguise owner investment/equity funding.
 
Last edited:
Lost for words said:
I think that just about every other club in the PL could well be on the end of 'one or two' landed punches. Try naming one where honesty, fairness or ethics are high up enough to gain public admiration. It doesn't exist in business, let alone this game, and in a culture where even senior Royals or clergy are not immune from public outing then there is no reason to believe that the other 19 EPL clubs are paragons of virtue either.
Click to expand...

Of course, WE know all this. The entire topic has been covered 100s of times. It doesn't change the fact that we are the ones in the dock as it were, and the judgment is going to be on us specifically.
The general public opinion is media led and seems to be that we must have broken SOME rules. That's regardless of actual evidence, it's just the common view because of our rapid success / jealousy.
Even if we are found not guilty on all counts there will be plenty of doubters.

The fact remains. Two highly capable legal teams have been involved and we await a verdict. The lack of leaks doesn't tell us anything.
 
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.