PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

jimharri said:
Strange how the speculation re the timing of an announcement has intensified over the last few days. I know that this spring has been flagged up as a possible D-Day from a long time back. But why this particular week. Surely, it can't be simply because of the international break? Have any of our clued up posters been given the heads up re the timing?
Click to expand...
I'll hazard a guess at no
 
jimharri said:
Strange how the speculation re the timing of an announcement has intensified over the last few days. I know that this spring has been flagged up as a possible D-Day from a long time back. But why this particular week. Surely, it can't be simply because of the international break? Have any of our clued up posters been given the heads up re the timing?
Click to expand...

International break seemed to fit the pattern that we’ve all become accustomed to.
 
nmc said:
Does your point about Chelsea maybe raise the prospect of City (if found guilty of any charges) needing to be dealt with by way of a financial penalty - given the PL statement re Chelsea ? A severe points deduction or other sporting sanction would that not give City immediate grounds for appeal on the basis that the PL are then interpreting and applying their own rules differently depending upon who they are dealing with? Particularly since they have signalled their intentions to Chelsea ahead of any hearing.
Click to expand...
I don't know the answer to this but I think the PL would say that Chelsea have admitted their guilt and it was Chelsea that actually flagged it. That may give the PL enough room to treat us differently, but I don't know how that stands legally.
 
Chris in London said:
Do they? I hadn't found any specific requirement within the rules to the effect that once the jurisdiction of the independent tribunal has been invoked, the parties can't, so to speak, un-invoke it in the event of a settlement, though TBH I haven't looked that hard. If it's there, it's there, but it's perhaps odd that the rules would deliberately draw a distinction between disciplinary hearings and say rule X arbitrations where a consensual resolution of the issue would be as contractually binding as the original agreement to submit to arbitration.

My overriding feeling when Masters was saying 'it's in the IC's hands now' was that he was largely saying 'get off my case' to the redshirts (and Tottenham). That said, that's in no way evidence based, it's just what I thought at the time. It is however interesting (if this is indeed the case) that the PL didn't discuss a plea-bargain with City before charges were brought, especially if following the bringing of charges they lose the ability to control that process (though the IC would of course have been overwhelmingly likely to ratify any compromise that wasn't too one-sided.)

My recollection is that there was almost universal agreement amongst the media at the time the charges were brought that the real motivation for any charges to be brought at all was pressure on Masters from the usual suspects. The fact that they were so sensationalist about the bringing of the charges - charges going back to Mancini's time, the number of charges, the leaking to the media before the decision was made public etc - always seemed distasteful and did nothing to dispel the theory that this was aimed primarily at placating the redshirts (and Tottenham).

When you stand that alongside issues such as the undisclosed access that Liverpool and United were given to the applicants for the position now occupied by Masters (who actually arranged that, given that Masters was the acting CEO at the time?) the PL's opposition to the Newcastle takeover (which Newcastle themselves believed was coming from the same quarter) the swiftness with which the PL moved after that takeover to introduce APT1 and the decision to charge City in relation to eg matters such as an alleged breach of UEFA's FFP rules when CAS had acquitted City of that, and it raises serious and profound questions about the independence of the PL.

Not that you will find (m)any journalists writing about any of that.

At the end of all this, there's one hell of a book to be written about it all...
Click to expand...
He who laughs last . . .
 
jimharri said:
Strange how the speculation re the timing of an announcement has intensified over the last few days. I know that this spring has been flagged up as a possible D-Day from a long time back. But why this particular week. Surely, it can't be simply because of the international break? Have any of our clued up posters been given the heads up re the timing?
Click to expand...
I imagine its ready when it's ready be it 12 15 or 22 weeks after the end of the hearing. There is then a week or so when the parties are informed of the findings before it is made public. During this review period news is likely to leak about a publication. Great if it was tm but more likely to be Easter time I would think. We have waited so long now not sure another month makes much difference.
 
TheGhost said:
Kieran McGuire in the latest Price of Football podcast has said he’s ’seen documents that aren’t in the public domain that shows City inflated its sponsorship revenue’.
Click to expand...
Wasn't there someone who posted here a few months ago saying that there could be other documents besides those in the public domain, maybe Kieran FuckGuire himself?
 
Omar the King said:
Wasn't there someone who posted here a few months ago saying that there could be other documents besides those in the public domain, maybe Kieran FuckGuire himself?
Click to expand...
They'll be a fuckton of documents not in the public domain, probably about 99% of the case on either side.
 
Chris in London said:
Do they? I hadn't found any specific requirement within the rules to the effect that once the jurisdiction of the independent tribunal has been invoked, the parties can't, so to speak, un-invoke it in the event of a settlement, though TBH I haven't looked that hard. If it's there, it's there, but it's perhaps odd that the rules would deliberately draw a distinction between disciplinary hearings and say rule X arbitrations where a consensual resolution of the issue would be as contractually binding as the original agreement to submit to arbitration.

My overriding feeling when Masters was saying 'it's in the IC's hands now' was that he was largely saying 'get off my case' to the redshirts (and Tottenham). That said, that's in no way evidence based, it's just what I thought at the time. It is however interesting (if this is indeed the case) that the PL didn't discuss a plea-bargain with City before charges were brought, especially if following the bringing of charges they lose the ability to control that process (though the IC would of course have been overwhelmingly likely to ratify any compromise that wasn't too one-sided.)

My recollection is that there was almost universal agreement amongst the media at the time the charges were brought that the real motivation for any charges to be brought at all was pressure on Masters from the usual suspects. The fact that they were so sensationalist about the bringing of the charges - charges going back to Mancini's time, the number of charges, the leaking to the media before the decision was made public etc - always seemed distasteful and did nothing to dispel the theory that this was aimed primarily at placating the redshirts (and Tottenham).

When you stand that alongside issues such as the undisclosed access that Liverpool and United were given to the applicants for the position now occupied by Masters (who actually arranged that, given that Masters was the acting CEO at the time?) the PL's opposition to the Newcastle takeover (which Newcastle themselves believed was coming from the same quarter) the swiftness with which the PL moved after that takeover to introduce APT1 and the decision to charge City in relation to eg matters such as an alleged breach of UEFA's FFP rules when CAS had acquitted City of that, and it raises serious and profound questions about the independence of the PL.

Not that you will find (m)any journalists writing about any of that.

At the end of all this, there's one hell of a book to be written about it all...
Click to expand...
Yes, it is called a Sanction Agreement.

Board power:

1742141421762.png

Ratification:
1742141456107.png

Publication rule:
1742141361902.png

Example (https://resources.premierleague.com...e-Premier-League-and-Fulham-FC-April-2024.pdf):
1742141513251.png
 
nmc said:
Does your point about Chelsea maybe raise the prospect of City (if found guilty of any charges) needing to be dealt with by way of a financial penalty - given the PL statement re Chelsea ? A severe points deduction or other sporting sanction would that not give City immediate grounds for appeal on the basis that the PL are then interpreting and applying their own rules differently depending upon who they are dealing with? Particularly since they have signalled their intentions to Chelsea ahead of any hearing.
Click to expand...
No, sadly I don't think so, IMO. Will be seen as different on the facts.
 
If the result is coming tomorrow or in 2 days that's a good thing because if we were guilty, the papers would've already been writing about it for the past few days.
 
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