The Super League | FA + PL: New Charter & Fines | UEFA: Settlement

Would you be happy if City joined this European Super League?

  • Yes

    Votes: 109 5.3%

  • No

    Votes: 1,954 94.7%
  • Total voters
    2,063
Wonder if this will alter our transfer plans now as well? Can’t see us spending big with this shit hanging over us again. We know how eager we are to be seen as a club who doesn’t just buy success. Feel sick fed up of all this fucking shit
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
@Chris in London posted on this a few days ago but we didn't know then what it related to.

This document makes it clear in that that it relates to FFP and an investigation carried out by the PL as a result of the Der Spiegel reports. Given that CAS comprehensively cleared us, apart from the non-cooperation charge (that wasn't part of the re-opened UEFA case anyway) I can't imagine it has any legs whatsoever.

But the case involves publication of the original judge's findings, which neither side (us or the PL) appear to want publicising. It seems we've not won that argument from what I can make out but I'm sure Chris or one of our other lawyers will be able to give chapter & verse.

But the essence of the case appears to be that we're refusing to disclose documents to the PL on the grounds that they have no powers to demand them.
Click to expand...

The bottom line about all this is that there is an ongoing disciplinary investigation concerning us that was commenced in 2018 and which has still not got beyond the preliminary stage. It is possible to piece together more of what the dispute is about from this judgment.

It is clear that the investigation is linked to the Der Spiegel allegations. Para 3 reads "the PL commenced a disciplinary investigation into the Club after allegations about the Club appeared in various European media reports which disclosed details of confidential documents obtained from a hack of the Club's email servers."

I'm not aware of any other articles in the European press other than those which piggy backed on the Der Spiegel article. The PL investigation was launched the day after the UEFA investigation that resulted in the appeal last year.

Back to the PL investigation, in August 2019 the PL requested various documents and information from us. We obviously did not comply with that request because in October the PL launched arbitration proceedings against us for that non-compliance. We objected to that on the grounds that the rules did not permit the PL to launch those arbitration proceedings.

One sidenote appears to be that the PL amended their rules relating to disciplinary proceedings, apparently as a response to our position. It wouldn't be the first time the PL had moved the goalposts.

That arbitration ran its course and was decided in June 2020, seemingly against us. In November 2020 the Arbitrators ordered City to hand over the documents requested by the PL. We appealed against that decision to the commercial court. Our appeal was heard in March 2021 and it was dismissed. That decision involved two decisions - one on the merits of our appeal, the other on the question of whether the outcome of the March appeal should be published. The Judge decided it should, but withheld her judgment to allow this appeal to proceed.

There were two arguments on appeal - whether the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to hear the appeal and whether the Judge was entitled to order publication. We won on the first and lost on the second.

I won't go into the technicalities of why we lost on the question of whether the judgment should be published, save to say that it is to do with what is perceived to be in the public interest. The argument is not that City in particular are deserving of public scrutiny, more that whoever might have been on the receiving end of the PL arbitration process, appeals against arbitration awards show how that process works and so it is in the public's interest generally to see the workings of that process. The comment that we have won the league twice in the time that this has been going through the wheels of justice is part of the justification of the decision that (against our wishes and those of the PL) the judgment under appeal should be published - hence "it is surprising and a matter of legitimate public concern that so little progress has been made after two and a half years." The comment that we've won the league twice in that period seems to me to really simply underlining the length of time this process has taken. There is no suggestion that for instance any disciplinary offences were committed in relation to the period covered by those seasons.

The outcome of all this is that since there was no appeal against the merits of the judgment that the PL was entitled to documents and information from us, 'behind the scenes' we will have handed over the documents and information requested by the PL some time after the March 2021 hearing. We remain, however, as the court noted at para 66, at the beginning of a disciplinary process. Whether the PL will actually bring disciplinary proceedings as a result of this is not known.

I haven't yet gone over the PL rules and the original Der Spiegel allegations to see whether disciplinary proceedings are time barred working back from a date an investigation was opened, or working back from the date the disciplinary proceedings themselves are committed. Either way, there is a very good chance any alleged wrong doing unearthed by the Der Spiegel revelations is time barred or doomed to fail for the same reasons the UEFA disciplinary proceedings failed.

There are two possible ways to analyse all this. One, the PL have tried to empanel (as it seems to us) a sort of kangaroo court and we were having none of it. We have therefore pursued our arguments so far as the law allows, on some points we have succeeded, on others we have failed, and that's as it should be. Now that issues like the constitution of the panel and ongoing publicity have been dealt with, we will get on with dealing with the investigation, and we will defend ourselves again if necessary.

The second is that the longer the time between the alleged offences and the conclusion of any disciplinary proceedings, the more farcical it becomes to impose any sanction that would impact on the club's on-field achievements. Suppose for instance that some time next year the PL imposed a five point penalty for the 2013-14 season. That would give the title to Liverpool, many years after they had lost it on the field, as a result of allegations that were not proved by UEFA. The whole thing would make a mockery of the PL. If we are found to have been in breach at all (a very big 'if') the longer the time that has elapsed since those breaches, the less likely an on-field sanction (ie a points deduction) is to justify. That suggests that any on-field penalty would be applied towards the current season - eg a points deduction - or that the penalty would be financial in nature.

Which of those two analyses is correct?

No idea.
 
Last edited:
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.