PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[richards30]

no thats a company called Endeavor who created TKO Holdings as a subsidary to look over WWE/UFC

But Silver Lake & Mubadala own Endeavor dont they?

 

[Rory Bluelow]

Because they're white. I don't know why the incredible racism and xenophobia over Arab owners is not acknowledged more. It really IS this simple. Occam's razor.

Because it’s shaped, driven and legitimised by the media. Across the entire spectrum - from the Guardian’s “row of grinning beards” to the Telegraph’s toxic hatred of Arabs in general and Abu Dhabi in particular. The BBC join in or at best turn a blind eye and Sky (Comcast) is in the pocket of the Cartel US clubs.
I hold the media much more responsible for racism etc than general football fans.

 

[WRicko]

Well, this narrative that a 'red cartel'/'PL cabal' assembled in an under ground bunker, and created FFPR to stop Arab owners, could not be further from the truth. The Glazers, Gillet & Hicks, Kroenke & Lerner did not want anyone snooping around in their financials, especially after saddling those clubs with huge debts from LBO's and asset stripping for their own financial gain. And Arsenal had just spent 1 billion on a new stadium. Abramovic was definitely not in favour of financial regulation, either.

FFPR came from France and Germany. It was not created here. The only reason why it was adopted so wholeheartedly by the PL, was to stop their prized assets from being bought out by American businessmen and hedge funds trying to make a quick buck. They feared that if enough American owners could get a strangle hold over the league, then the possibility of a European Super league would be unstoppable. And it almost did happen. FFPR was the only thing that they could use to put them off. They also tried to get a law passed that LBO's had to be approved by the minister for sport.

Nothing to do with stopping Americans taking over

 

[FanchesterCity]

The key point is that there is no limitation carve out in the PL rules which, in the absence of that, is English law

But even English law has exemptions and caveats. The 6 year limit for arbitration only applies to awards / judgments but does not apply to evidence. So evidence gathered or related to a time period beyond the 6 years can still be used if it can be demonstrated as relevant to events within the 6 year limit.

The PL will most likely also be arguing that City hindered their investigations so the PL only became aware of breaches quite some time after they had occurred (and the discovery was within 6 years).

I think it's slightly wishful thinking to believe a time bar will prevail on most of the charges. Furthermore, if that were to be the case it would only cement the belief that we got off on a technicality. In many ways, if the club is innocent we don't want any time bar, we want a categorical declaration of innocence.
Sadly I think the PL have backed themselves into a corner where they need to come out with at least some win (or verdict they can present as a win). That sucks and suggests their primary goal IS to have City punished. Their prime goal should always be to reach the correct decision based on the facts and fair judgment and adapt the rules fairly and transparently in the true interests of the sport, not specific clubs.

I suspect we have been 'creative' in some of our practices, in the same way most clubs are. This is natural behaviour for any business... how to maximise benefits by being creative but within the rules. Sadly, I think some of the rules will be interpreted in ways that make City look bad. The 115+ charges are really multiple instances of certain allegations, but even so, it's hard to imagine where every single interpretation of the rules goes in our favour. The question then will be 'if City breached rule x, due to the interpretation being rules as...' then how many others now fall into breach?

It's one thing to have 115 breaches thrown at us, it's quite another to make some of those breaches stick without it sticking forgotten clubs too.

 

[Citi-leaks]

The Premier League is 100% controlled by United, Why else have they won it the most and Liverpool only once
Even the voting system is controlled by them when wanting a rule change it happens, Also this season the £75 million in allowances for clearing PSR rules,

When you have controlled the league for so long and handed titles and cups and then all of a sudden somebody wants to take it away from you you try anything possible to stop them, They have tried just about everything possible with rule changes and it never stopped us, So the only way is to throw some shit around and try and make it stick,

I am 100% its comes from over the road, it's their sort of thing and they always want to wash somebody's dirty pants in public, United and Fergie did it to Newcastle Liverpool Arsenal and they buckled under the pressure

Do you remember when Fergie said that simple quote ? Never in my lifetime, that is the power he had or thought he had, I still think he thinks we are still little old City, But we were never a little club just a badly run club

Really??

The Glazers couldn't find their own backsides in an arse kicking competition. They haven't won a title for 12 years, due to their shambolic mismanagement, lack of experience, lack of judgement, weak ownership, non existent leadership and a complete lack of direction.

They rarely ever visited the UK, and appointed company stooges from the Banking industry to run the club. This is an asset stripping exercise, pure and simple.

And you think that these are the same guys that are pulling all the strings???

This is quite frankly laughable and preposterous.

 

[chaddblue]

What are they saying, or should I say alleging now?

Suggesting that peps been playing away from home and it’s about to hit the press. Load of bollocks

 

[domalino]

Fraud=criminal=beyond reasonable doubt

Civil=balance of probabilities

The Key Differences Between Criminal And Civil Law - Bell Lamb & Joynson Solicitors

Whether you need to know about criminal law or civil law right now, or you just want to gain an understanding for the future, we’ve got you covered.

www.bljsolicitors.co.uk

I’m not a lawyer but even I know civil fraud is a thing.

The burden of proof is determined by the venue, hence why we have civil rape trials, where the burden of proof is still balance of probabilities despite the fact it’s about whether a crime took place.

 

[ayrshire_blue]

I don't know if this means anything at all in relation to our case, it might be irrelevant, but just felt it's worth adding as he chaired our hearing which is currently awaiting a verdict.

Edit - it was a five year tenure which is ending in the new year. So nothing out of the ordinary. Still worthy of adding to discussion, perhaps.

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

Well, this narrative that a 'red cartel'/'PL cabal' assembled in an under ground bunker, and created FFPR to stop Arab owners, could not be further from the truth. The Glazers, Gillet & Hicks, Kroenke & Lerner did not want anyone snooping around in their financials, especially after saddling those clubs with huge debts from LBO's and asset stripping for their own financial gain. And Arsenal had just spent 1 billion on a new stadium. Abramovic was definitely not in favour of financial regulation, either.

FFPR came from France and Germany. It was not created here. The only reason why it was adopted so wholeheartedly by the PL, was to stop their prized assets from being bought out by American businessmen and hedge funds trying to make a quick buck. They feared that if enough American owners could get a strangle hold over the league, then the possibility of a European Super league would be unstoppable. And it almost did happen. FFPR was the only thing that they could use to put them off. They also tried to get a law passed that LBO's had to be approved by the minister for sport.

I can't say that's my impression. And I also thought the architects were utd and bayern and applied at UEFA's level rather than French league level.

 

[halfcenturyup]

But even English law has exemptions and caveats. The 6 year limit for arbitration only applies to awards / judgments but does not apply to evidence. So evidence gathered or related to a time period beyond the 6 years can still be used if it can be demonstrated as relevant to events within the 6 year limit.

The PL will most likely also be arguing that City hindered their investigations so the PL only became aware of breaches quite some time after they had occurred (and the discovery was within 6 years).

I think it's slightly wishful thinking to believe a time bar will prevail on most of the charges. Furthermore, if that were to be the case it would only cement the belief that we got off on a technicality. In many ways, if the club is innocent we don't want any time bar, we want a categorical declaration of innocence.
Sadly I think the PL have backed themselves into a corner where they need to come out with at least some win (or verdict they can present as a win). That sucks and suggests their primary goal IS to have City punished. Their prime goal should always be to reach the correct decision based on the facts and fair judgment and adapt the rules fairly and transparently in the true interests of the sport, not specific clubs.

I suspect we have been 'creative' in some of our practices, in the same way most clubs are. This is natural behaviour for any business... how to maximise benefits by being creative but within the rules. Sadly, I think some of the rules will be interpreted in ways that make City look bad. The 115+ charges are really multiple instances of certain allegations, but even so, it's hard to imagine where every single interpretation of the rules goes in our favour. The question then will be 'if City breached rule x, due to the interpretation being rules as...' then how many others now fall into breach?

It's one thing to have 115 breaches thrown at us, it's quite another to make some of those breaches stick without it sticking forgotten clubs too.

This has all been discussed forwards, sideways and backwards in the last 7800 pages, and by people better qualified than you or I, apparently. And you were so nearly there in many of your points ....