PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

terraloon said:
If I were a betting man my guess it would be more to do with our matters and not Cities.
Click to expand...
Is it another sneaky rule change which has been slipped out quietly by the PL because it will support their ongoing narrative that City were unable to supply them with emails and documents
going back to 2008? How realistic is to ask any business to archive material going back 17 years when their books have been audited every year and been approved? The lack of transparency by the PL and the way it governs elite football is a disgrace. Does this rule extend to confidential financial documents provided by external sponsors which have no legal obligation to release their business documents....especially to be seen by their commercial rivals? The PL is a cowboy operation.
 
Last edited:
bobbyowenquiff said:
Is it another sneaky rule change which has been slipped out quietly by the PL because it will support their ongoing narrative that City were unable to supply them with emails and documented going back to 2008? How realistic is to ask any business to archive material going back 17 years when their books have been audited every year and been approved? The lack of transparency by the PL and the way it governs elite football is a disgrace. Does this rule extend to confidential financial documents provided by external sponsors which have no legal obligation to release their business documents....especially to be seen by their commercial rivals? The PL is a cowboy operation.
Click to expand...
My reading of the new rules is that clubs are only required to preserve documents after an investigation commences. So if the normal requirement is to retain documents for six years, as dictated by limitation law, and an investigation hasn't commenced against a club in that time, then a club might dispose of those no longer needed documents. Any subsequent investigation might not have documents to look at.

This will put the onus on the PL to be more diligent in their consideration of club accounts.
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
Is it another sneaky rule change which has been slipped out quietly by the PL because it will support their ongoing narrative that City were unable to supply them with emails and documents
going back to 2008? How realistic is to ask any business to archive material going back 17 years when their books have been audited every year and been approved? The lack of transparency by the PL and the way it governs elite football is a disgrace. Does this rule extend to confidential financial documents provided by external sponsors which have no legal obligation to release their business documents....especially to be seen by their commercial rivals? The PL is a cowboy operation.
Click to expand...
You see the Premier League didn’t have to do all of this when it was the red cartel wanker clubs and Chelsea occupying the top 4 and spending money at will. No need for Rules as nobody else really threatened the stranglehold.

I'd be interested to see the Premier League rules from 1992 onwards and see how they been tweaked and changed.

Or more to the point, was there any rules at all in the 90s and 00s?

I bet there wasn't even enough to fill a page but i bet the lower these "original 4" began slipping and losing their top 4 places to other teams these rules got bigger and longer and added to until you had a handbook of complete bollocks like we have now.


Just a thought.
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
Is it another sneaky rule change which has been slipped out quietly by the PL because it will support their ongoing narrative that City were unable to supply them with emails and documents
going back to 2008? How realistic is to ask any business to archive material going back 17 years when their books have been audited every year and been approved? The lack of transparency by the PL and the way it governs elite football is a disgrace. Does this rule extend to confidential financial documents provided by external sponsors which have no legal obligation to release their business documents....especially to be seen by their commercial rivals? The PL is a cowboy operation.
Click to expand...

Whose primary objectives are determined and influenced by a cabal of US owned clubs.
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
Is it another sneaky rule change which has been slipped out quietly by the PL because it will support their ongoing narrative that City were unable to supply them with emails and documents
going back to 2008? How realistic is to ask any business to archive material going back 17 years when their books have been audited every year and been approved? The lack of transparency by the PL and the way it governs elite football is a disgrace. Does this rule extend to confidential financial documents provided by external sponsors which have no legal obligation to release their business documents....especially to be seen by their commercial rivals? The PL is a cowboy operation.
Click to expand...
Any sensible organisation has a retention policy that fully obeys data protection law. And GDPR/the Data Protection Act says you must not hold any personal data for longer than is absolutely necessary
For most of my recently employers, including an organisation that knows more about this legislation than anybody, that period is 5 years. Anything older HAS to be deleted if it contains personal data, unless there are clear and GDPR audited reasons why. A full data protection assessment
So this latest oddness might well actually turn out to be unlawful.
Mind you. Wouldn’t be the first time the PL has tried to rush through rules that will later be found to be illegal…
 
Last edited:
the thing is Chelsea's lawyers are just very clever.
hotel sales, all above board
women team sales, all above board, others now started to copy...
and earlier the 8-9 year contracts which had to be approved until the changes happened, it did help them with some expensive players amortized costs early on...

they probably told new owners to admit some of sketchy stuff of the Abra era, and this will help to get tiny punishment, compared to PL finds out from different source and then goes on witch hunt like with City, even though the actual rules broken are just as sick or even worse than some of the 115 charges.
the amount potentially involved in us maybe paying Mancini bits and pieces through UAE club, doesnt even come close to Chelsea regularly paying off agents outside the accounts which helped them to get big players "cheaper" = sporting advantage.

make no mistake if we would report ourselves now that we see under the Sinawatra era there were some strange payments PL would start a huge investigation no matter what and media noise around it would be serious.
with Chelsea though I am doubtful they even get anything else than a small financial fine maybe. despite these do not even need much a hearing as they self admitted all of it.

the media silence on Chelsea's case is brutal. nobody interested, nobody asking for timelines, nobody impatient to know the punishment.
 
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