PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

JewelZee said:
I understand that the very nature of any actionable charges is thought to be hostile, but I still believe there are levels to this and that the Prem hasn't done anything to keep the "hostilities" to a somewhat lesser degree. In fact, I could argue they've done the opposite, an example being the way the charges were put into the public's domain. They were put out to cause maximum effect (while even doing a quite sloppy job of it).

Being that we both agree if City were to be essentially cleared it would be deemed a circus why would the Prem put themselves in such a position. I don't see the risk/reward from a rational business standpoint. I believe the Prem could have proceeded with their investigation and subsequent charges without basically instigating a public bloodbath. That's just my opinion.

Also, I don't see how the Prem "win". We are either cleared and it all looks like what some of us believe or we are found in violation and ruined leaving the Prem to explain how a club was able to reach a dominant status in their league over a period extending well beyond a decade only to have been in breach of a slew of serious rules over the same extended period of time. I don't see how that would strengthen the league's position of being some kind of effective self regulator. For me it further highlights their ineptitude and raises the need for someone independent to regulate what goes on.

We're not talking about a 2 or 3 year window. We're saying the Prem has been a sham for the better part of 15 years so everyone please disregard everything that's gone on since about 2009.

At best we've done nothing wrong. At worst we gamed some "man made" rules 5 to 15 years ago. The smart play by the Prem in either situation was to move on. We're not talking a criminal case here, a murder, a violent assault. Tighten up your rules fellas and keep a keener eye. I'm not saying this as a die hard supporter even. It's just simple pros and cons. I don't see any world where City being destroyed as we know them and having over a dozen years of league play tarnished and invalidated would signify a win for the league. I see it as an unmitigated disaster for all involved thus my reference to this being a circus complete with tents, clowns, jugglers, a barker, the whole thing...
Click to expand...
You can add to the league play tarnished and invalidated, the way City under pep have changed the way the majority of clubs in England now paly Football. The way this whole issue has been handled by the League and press is appaling and unbelievable
 
Gone for a Burton said:
Gary Cook wouldve tipped the apple cart over and set fire to the rain rather than accept the organised and premeditated shit thats come the clubs way.

He'd have put Mario in charge of media & PR ,with Nigel de Jong head of security.

Cookie wouldve been great fun and the ticket prices would've been sorted yonks ago. !!
Click to expand...
Is that the same gary cook that appointed Wayne rooney as Birmingham manager?
 
halfcenturyup said:
And the panel members will be erring on the side of cogency so much in such a high profile and serious case it will take some seriously incriminating evidence to persuade them that the club's third party witness statements and accounting evidence aren't convincing. I can't really see any way they have such incriminating evidence on the most serious charges.

All imho, of course.
Click to expand...
Causing a Diplomatic incident and jeopardising trading relationships, jobs etc all over an Arsenal season ticket.
 
Damanino said:
I dont have 100% trust in this panel. especially headed or selected by an Arsenal fan. they re all paid by the PL arent they?
its like they have bunch of expensive lawyers they pay, we have lawyers we pay, and there is a panel to decide on ll this they pay too.
luckily the Leicester case was there where they said to PL to fuckoff albeit it was more of a clever loophole wasnt it.

dont want to say the panel is rigged if they find us guilty but great if they find us innocent, but that is the truth. :)

the case on Chelsea's self admitted crimes was said to be dealt with earlier than our case but not even timelines are shared or even PL charges announced. have a feeling that will be brushed under the carpet.

how the fuck Uefa managed to hand out punishment more than a year ago on that. even if it was just very minor 10m euros fee to be paid. had it been us maybe they start full investigation with expulsion etc and let it go to CAS again. with oother clubs they seem much less serious.
Click to expand...

I was explaining to Chris the accountant a few days ago that how I get things clear in my head is to write a report to myself with every single issue I can think of, and then check to the expert opinions on here. I did this for the independence of the panel a while ago and this is what I wrote:

(It's just my view so you can disagree, but it was useful to me to get things straight. Maybe it's useful for you. If I have any facts wrong, though, I will blame the cunty lawyers who weren't able to explain the situation clearly enough). Warning: It's loooong :)


"Independence of the panel

There is concern among some City fans that the PL panel will be biased against City and come to a verdict favourable to the PL because of press pressure, public pressure or the vitriol (and honestly downright disrespect) shown against and towards the club from many quarters. (There is a counter-narrative from some fans of rival clubs, of course, that the PL panel will be lenient to the club because of the wealth of the owners, political pressure, economic pressure, threats and Godknowswhatelse. These can be dispelled on the same basis as the concerns of City fans, as set out below).

People are free to believe what they read in the press if they so wish (unfortunately, if some of the events of last summer are the consequence) and to be naturally paranoid but, personally, I don’t believe for one minute that the PL panel will be biased one way or the other.

Let’s first dispel the notion that the PL will make sure that an example will be made of City. They may well want to, but this process is now out of their hands. They will be able to recommend sanctions for any allegations that are proven, but the decision on the allegations and subsequent sanctions, if any, will be made independently by the panel members.

With that out of the way, we can look a little more deeply at the independence of the panel.

Yes, it’s true that the PL appointed the chairman of the disciplinary panel (Murray Rosen KC) and he selected and appointed the members of the disciplinary panel, and also that he appoints the members of each panel that considers a case, but the members of the panel are all respected legal professionals, probably all KCs or retired judges, or other professionals with similar excellent credentials. They would only be appointed having demonstrated outstanding intellect and integrity, and appointment to a high-profile disciplinary panel would require them again to demonstrate those qualities. This is not some kangaroo court, it will be an assembly of highly trained, widely experienced and intellectually formidable individuals.

There is sometimes an argument raised along the lines that membership of a disciplinary or similar panel of that sort both constitutes a source of income and is a matter of status, and so there is an inevitable tendency on the part of members of those panels to recognise the hand that feeds them. Such a view has been continually rejected, at CAS, in PL arbitration and in the commercial courts. And if those rejections aren’t enough to convince you, consider that panel members are appointed because of their independence, not because they are likely to surrender it, and many have a tendency to demonstrate that independence.

City fans point to the majority 2-1 verdicts at CAS in a case where there was no real evidence of the charged behaviour as a sign that panel members can be unpredictable and vote for many reasons contrary to their fellow members. The vote against is presumed consistently to have been Ulrich Haas, Professor of Civil Law at Zurich University, firstly because he was UEFA’s choice and, secondly, because one of his research assistants later wrote a piece about how CAS had come to the wrong verdict. Why did he vote so? Strongly held views, sense of obligation, tradition? We will never know, of course, but it brings home the point that one never knows in a legal case. That is one of the reasons why panels like this have several members, to reduce the chance of an outlying opinion affecting the verdict as a whole and why an appeals process is in place (until the final authority) where decisions can be reviewed. In the end, the CAS panel came to the correct decision. UEFA’s supporters can be concerned with the question of why two of the three arbitrators disagreed with Haas, and the most likely answer is that he was wrong, not the two others.

Similarly, some City fans point to the decisions made by the independent panels that considered the Everton I and Leicester cases as evidence that these panels can make mistakes in their interpretation of the law, and otherwise. To counter that, I would suggest that, once the process had run its course through the appeals process, the judgments were not unfair. At least both Everton and Leicester seemed to think so. And, certainly as far as the Leicester process is concerned, the original panel was very much a B team of disciplinary panel members, who were corrected on appeal by two senior judges and a KC. I have no doubt, given the profile of the PL’s case against City, that Rosen will put his best team forward to avoid a repeat of the fiasco that the original decision in the Leicester case became. I doubt very much that either the PL or Rosen himself can afford another case where a poor decision is reversed on appeal, especially in such a high profile case.

And let's not forget the panel will have to explain the reasoning for any decisions, and they will be subject to review by an appeal panel if their verdict is not based on sound legal principles. In addition, any reasoning from either panel which does not properly take into account the evidence and the relevant legal aspects will be open to challenge at an appeal and then all the way to a PL arbitration and beyond (although in ever decreasing circumstances and with an ever decreasing likelihood of such an appeal being accepted). Nevertheless, such a possibility is there and one of the few reasons that such an arbitration would be accepted, (although I will say again the chances of acceptance and success are reduced the further up the appeals process one goes) is that the appealed decision is

“one which could not reasonably have been reached by any commission or appeals board which had applied its mind properly to the case”.

City fans may consider the PL to be powerful, rival fans may consider the club’s owners to be powerful, but no respected legal professional will want to have their reputation sullied with such a charge or, worse, with having such a charge upheld by a later decision, in my opinion. It would be humiliating for the PL as a whole, but particularly for the individual members of the panel, if they were to find their award being challenged on the grounds that it entailed a "serious irregularity".

To conclude, I feel strongly there is no reason whatsoever for thinking that the completed process will be anything other than full, detailed, scrupulously fair and intellectually rigorous."

And breathe ......
 
Last edited:
halfcenturyup said:
And the panel members will be erring on the side of cogency so much in such a high profile and serious case it will take some seriously incriminating evidence to persuade them that the club's third party witness statements and accounting evidence aren't convincing. I can't really see any way they have such incriminating evidence on the most serious charges.

All imho, of course.
Click to expand...
Even if they had "incriminating evidence" at City's end it takes 2 to tango so it would incriminate a 3rd party who would not be bound by PL rules.
I imagine these 3rd parties would sue for vast amounts.
 
halfcenturyup said:
I was explaining to Chris the accountant a few days ago that how I get things clear in ky head is to write a report to myself with every single issue I can think of, and then check to the expert opinions on here. I did this for the independence of the panel a while ago and this is what I wrote:

(It's just my view so you can disagree, but it was useful to me to text things straight. Maybe it's useful for you. If I have any facts wrong, though, I will blame the cunty lawyers who weren't able to explain the situation clearly enough). Warning: It's loooong :)


"Independence of the panel

There is concern among some City fans that the PL panel will be biased against City and come to a verdict favourable to the PL because of press pressure, public pressure or the vitriol (and honestly downright disrespect) shown against and towards the club from many quarters. (There is a counter-narrative from some fans of rival clubs, of course, that the PL panel will be lenient to the club because of the wealth of the owners, political pressure, economic pressure, threats and Godknowswhatelse. These can be dispelled on the same basis as the concerns of City fans, as set out below).

People are free to believe what they read in the press if they so wish (unfortunately, if some of the events of last summer are the consequence) and to be naturally paranoid but, personally, I don’t believe for one minute that the PL panel will be biased one way or the other.

Let’s first dispel the notion that the PL will make sure that an example will be made of City. They may well want to, but this process is now out of their hands. They will be able to recommend sanctions for any allegations that are proven, but the decision on the allegations and subsequent sanctions, if any, will be made independently by the panel members.

With that out of the way, we can look a little more deeply at the independence of the panel.

Yes, it’s true that the PL appointed the chairman of the disciplinary panel (Murray Rosen KC) and he selected and appointed the members of the disciplinary panel, and also that he appoints the members of each panel that considers a case, but the members of the panel are all respected legal professionals, probably all KCs or retired judges, or other professionals with similar excellent credentials. They would only be appointed having demonstrated outstanding intellect and integrity, and appointment to a high-profile disciplinary panel would require them again to demonstrate those qualities. This is not some kangaroo court, it will be an assembly of highly trained, widely experienced and intellectually formidable individuals.

There is sometimes an argument raised along the lines that membership of a disciplinary or similar panel of that sort both constitutes a source of income and is a matter of status, and so there is an inevitable tendency on the part of members of those panels to recognise the hand that feeds them. Such a view has been continually rejected, at CAS, in PL arbitration and in the commercial courts. And if those rejections aren’t enough to convince you, consider that panel members are appointed because of their independence, not because they are likely to surrender it, and many have a tendency to demonstrate that independence.

City fans point to the majority 2-1 verdicts at CAS in a case where there was no real evidence of the charged behaviour as a sign that panel members can be unpredictable and vote for many reasons contrary to their fellow members. The vote against is presumed consistently to have been Ulrich Haas, Professor of Civil Law at Zurich University, firstly because he was UEFA’s choice and, secondly, because one of his research assistants later wrote a piece about how CAS had come to the wrong verdict. Why did he vote so? Strongly held views, sense of obligation, tradition? We will never know, of course, but it brings home the point that one never knows in a legal case. That is one of the reasons why panels like this have several members, to reduce the chance of an outlying opinion affecting the verdict as a whole and why an appeals process is in place (until the final authority) where decisions can be reviewed. In the end, the CAS panel came to the correct decision. UEFA’s supporters can be concerned with the question of why two of the three arbitrators disagreed with Haas, and the most likely answer is that he was wrong, not the two others.

Similarly, some City fans point to the decisions made by the independent panels that considered the Everton I and Leicester cases as evidence that these panels can make mistakes in their interpretation of the law, and otherwise. To counter that, I would suggest that, once the process had run its course through the appeals process, the judgments were not unfair. At least both Everton and Leicester seemed to think so. And, certainly as far as the Leicester process is concerned, the original panel was very much a B team of disciplinary panel members, who were corrected on appeal by two senior judges and a KC. I have no doubt, given the profile of the PL’s case against City, that Rosen will put his best team forward to avoid a repeat of the fiasco that the original decision in the Leicester case became. I doubt very much that either the PL or Rosen himself can afford another case where a poor decision is reversed on appeal, especially in such a high profile case.

And let's not forget the panel will have to explain the reasoning for any decisions, and they will be subject to review by an appeal panel if their verdict is not based on sound legal principles. In addition, any reasoning from either panel which does not properly take into account the evidence and the relevant legal aspects will be open to challenge at an appeal and then all the way to a PL arbitration and beyond (although in ever decreasing circumstances and with an ever decreasing likelihood of such an appeal being accepted). Nevertheless, such a possibility is there and one of the few reasons that such an arbitration would be accepted, (although I will say again the chances of acceptance and success are reduced the further up the appeals process one goes) is that the appealed decision is

“one which could not reasonably have been reached by any commission or appeals board which had applied its mind properly to the case”.

City fans may consider the PL to be powerful, rival fans may consider the club’s owners to be powerful, but no respected legal professional will want to have their reputation sullied with such a charge or, worse, with having such a charge upheld by a later decision, in my opinion. It would be humiliating for the PL as a whole, but particularly for the individual members of the panel, if they were to find their award being challenged on the grounds that it entailed a "serious irregularity".

To conclude, I feel strongly there is no reason whatsoever for thinking that the completed process will be anything other than full, detailed, scrupulously fair and intellectually rigorous."

And breathe ......
Click to expand...
Yeah I'm going to need a vastly dumbed down and short version of whatever this is
 
halfcenturyup said:
I was explaining to Chris the accountant a few days ago that how I get things clear in my head is to write a report to myself with every single issue I can think of, and then check to the expert opinions on here. I did this for the independence of the panel a while ago and this is what I wrote:

(It's just my view so you can disagree, but it was useful to me to text things straight. Maybe it's useful for you. If I have any facts wrong, though, I will blame the cunty lawyers who weren't able to explain the situation clearly enough). Warning: It's loooong :)


"Independence of the panel

There is concern among some City fans that the PL panel will be biased against City and come to a verdict favourable to the PL because of press pressure, public pressure or the vitriol (and honestly downright disrespect) shown against and towards the club from many quarters. (There is a counter-narrative from some fans of rival clubs, of course, that the PL panel will be lenient to the club because of the wealth of the owners, political pressure, economic pressure, threats and Godknowswhatelse. These can be dispelled on the same basis as the concerns of City fans, as set out below).

People are free to believe what they read in the press if they so wish (unfortunately, if some of the events of last summer are the consequence) and to be naturally paranoid but, personally, I don’t believe for one minute that the PL panel will be biased one way or the other.

Let’s first dispel the notion that the PL will make sure that an example will be made of City. They may well want to, but this process is now out of their hands. They will be able to recommend sanctions for any allegations that are proven, but the decision on the allegations and subsequent sanctions, if any, will be made independently by the panel members.

With that out of the way, we can look a little more deeply at the independence of the panel.

Yes, it’s true that the PL appointed the chairman of the disciplinary panel (Murray Rosen KC) and he selected and appointed the members of the disciplinary panel, and also that he appoints the members of each panel that considers a case, but the members of the panel are all respected legal professionals, probably all KCs or retired judges, or other professionals with similar excellent credentials. They would only be appointed having demonstrated outstanding intellect and integrity, and appointment to a high-profile disciplinary panel would require them again to demonstrate those qualities. This is not some kangaroo court, it will be an assembly of highly trained, widely experienced and intellectually formidable individuals.

There is sometimes an argument raised along the lines that membership of a disciplinary or similar panel of that sort both constitutes a source of income and is a matter of status, and so there is an inevitable tendency on the part of members of those panels to recognise the hand that feeds them. Such a view has been continually rejected, at CAS, in PL arbitration and in the commercial courts. And if those rejections aren’t enough to convince you, consider that panel members are appointed because of their independence, not because they are likely to surrender it, and many have a tendency to demonstrate that independence.

City fans point to the majority 2-1 verdicts at CAS in a case where there was no real evidence of the charged behaviour as a sign that panel members can be unpredictable and vote for many reasons contrary to their fellow members. The vote against is presumed consistently to have been Ulrich Haas, Professor of Civil Law at Zurich University, firstly because he was UEFA’s choice and, secondly, because one of his research assistants later wrote a piece about how CAS had come to the wrong verdict. Why did he vote so? Strongly held views, sense of obligation, tradition? We will never know, of course, but it brings home the point that one never knows in a legal case. That is one of the reasons why panels like this have several members, to reduce the chance of an outlying opinion affecting the verdict as a whole and why an appeals process is in place (until the final authority) where decisions can be reviewed. In the end, the CAS panel came to the correct decision. UEFA’s supporters can be concerned with the question of why two of the three arbitrators disagreed with Haas, and the most likely answer is that he was wrong, not the two others.

Similarly, some City fans point to the decisions made by the independent panels that considered the Everton I and Leicester cases as evidence that these panels can make mistakes in their interpretation of the law, and otherwise. To counter that, I would suggest that, once the process had run its course through the appeals process, the judgments were not unfair. At least both Everton and Leicester seemed to think so. And, certainly as far as the Leicester process is concerned, the original panel was very much a B team of disciplinary panel members, who were corrected on appeal by two senior judges and a KC. I have no doubt, given the profile of the PL’s case against City, that Rosen will put his best team forward to avoid a repeat of the fiasco that the original decision in the Leicester case became. I doubt very much that either the PL or Rosen himself can afford another case where a poor decision is reversed on appeal, especially in such a high profile case.

And let's not forget the panel will have to explain the reasoning for any decisions, and they will be subject to review by an appeal panel if their verdict is not based on sound legal principles. In addition, any reasoning from either panel which does not properly take into account the evidence and the relevant legal aspects will be open to challenge at an appeal and then all the way to a PL arbitration and beyond (although in ever decreasing circumstances and with an ever decreasing likelihood of such an appeal being accepted). Nevertheless, such a possibility is there and one of the few reasons that such an arbitration would be accepted, (although I will say again the chances of acceptance and success are reduced the further up the appeals process one goes) is that the appealed decision is

“one which could not reasonably have been reached by any commission or appeals board which had applied its mind properly to the case”.

City fans may consider the PL to be powerful, rival fans may consider the club’s owners to be powerful, but no respected legal professional will want to have their reputation sullied with such a charge or, worse, with having such a charge upheld by a later decision, in my opinion. It would be humiliating for the PL as a whole, but particularly for the individual members of the panel, if they were to find their award being challenged on the grounds that it entailed a "serious irregularity".

To conclude, I feel strongly there is no reason whatsoever for thinking that the completed process will be anything other than full, detailed, scrupulously fair and intellectually rigorous."

And breathe ......
Click to expand...

The charges were the punishment, the panel can say they were justified in charging & clear City, still get paid by the prem, keep the box at the Emirates & don’t piss off the home office.
 
jrb said:
Probably already been posted? If so, ignore.

View attachment 141709
Click to expand...
“Retailate”? Interesting choice of word from City. Imo it either means

1. We’re going to appeal (although whether that would be described as “retaliating” I’m not sure).

2. We’ve battered them and are now going to buy all the players this nonsense has prevented us from buying and are going on another trophy winning rampage as “retaliation”.

What’s everyone’s thoughts?
 
Stoned Rose said:
“Retailate”? Interesting choice of word from City. Imo it either means

1. We’re going to appeal (although whether that would be described as “retaliating” I’m not sure).

2. We’ve battered them and are now going to buy all the players this nonsense has prevented us from buying and are going on another trophy winning rampage as “retaliation”.

What’s everyone’s thoughts?
Click to expand...

Likely a wank journalist with an even wanker vocabulary.
 
Stoned Rose said:
“Retailate”? Interesting choice of word from City. Imo it either means

1. We’re going to appeal (although whether that would be described as “retaliating” I’m not sure).

2. We’ve battered them and are now going to buy all the players this nonsense has prevented us from buying and are going on another trophy winning rampage as “retaliation”.

What’s everyone’s thoughts?
Click to expand...

Imo it should be taken separate from the 115 comment as "retaliate" here is with reference purely to our league position and form. We will retaliate by strengthening the side and fighting back our way up the league table.

Even still, if taken separate, the 115 comment is still another positive vibe. Soft signal?
 
johnevans said:
Indeed.. I look forward to us being cleared and the response that will follow from our side to ram it down various Red Cartel, Media and Internet Herberts' throats.. all done with some style and panache, of course!

I'd suggest a celebratory album of covers, hits reworked to reflect the magic number itself, for example:

'One After 115' - The Beatles
'115 Ways To Leave Your Lover' - Paul Simon
'115 Or 6 To 4' - Chicago
'It Takes 115' - Marvin Gaye/Kim Weston
'115 Luftballons' - Nena
'Happy Birthday Sweet 115' - Neil Sedaka
'One (One Five)' - U2
Click to expand...

11 5:15 - The Who (of course!)
 
slbsn said:
I think the PL has tried to allow a typically hostile investigation and then piece of serious litigation to sit side by side with the day to day business of dealing with a shareholder and competition member. The PLs office has images of City’s success all over - pictures of the title wins, Haaland, the trophy with blue ribbons. All this sits side by side with the PL trying to wear its regulators hat. Every investigation is hostile as is every piece of litigation.

The reality is that if the PL win, their hostility is justified. If not, it will be seen as a circus. Again this is like most Serious Fraud Office and other regulatory cases.
Click to expand...
I have always maintained that an organisation that runs a competition should not act as regulator as well. See, for example, the different treatment by UEFA of City and PSG, whose chairman had just paid mega bucks to televise the CL.
This dual role exists in so many sports and there is always a conflict between the need for the competition to make money and the need for the regulator to be even-handed. At the very least, there should be a Chinese wall between the regulatory section and the marketing of the competition but ideally they should be separate organisations. Just imagine the banks operating the Financial Conduct Authority.
 
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