| So, according to this article 13:06 - Oct 2 with 2982 views | Guthrum |
ManC are thought to be appealing on the basis that the extra sponsorship money was paid by the Abu Dhabi government, not the club's owners. If there were no formal declared contracts behind that - as one assumes there would need to be, for the Prem's financial rules - I don't understand how that makes it any better for them.
"Oh, we had all this extra sponsorship we didn't tell you about and which wasn't checked to be at realistic commercial levels." doesn't sound like a brilliant defence.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/fo |  |
| |  |
| So, according to this article on 13:13 - Oct 2 with 2476 views | Keno |
One suspects this is likely to get 'political' now
I fully expect Man City to let off in the end |  |
| |
| So, according to this article on 13:19 - Oct 2 with 2437 views | bluestandard |
Not an expert, but it seems to me that their angle with this is to refute the fact that the CLUB itself made covert / disguised equity injections. By arguing that it was the Abu Dhabi government and not the club that made the payments, might there need to be further evidence that the club was essentially owned by the Abu Dhabi government? This might be harder to prove I'm guessing. It doesn't help the argument about the level of the sponsorship deals being unrealistic, but it might water down the sanctions against owner equity injections. |  | | |
| So, according to this article on 13:21 - Oct 2 with 2431 views | vapour_trail |
| So, according to this article on 13:13 - Oct 2 by Keno |
One suspects this is likely to get 'political' now
I fully expect Man City to let off in the end |
I think it has already got political.
I don’t see them getting let off, I’d imagine there’ll be a lot of work behind the scenes to manage the impact of any sanctions.
For example they might take the hit of a year in the championship through a large points deduction if an expulsion from the league is genuinely on the table. |  |
| |
| So, according to this article on 13:23 - Oct 2 with 2422 views | Guthrum |
| So, according to this article on 13:13 - Oct 2 by Keno |
One suspects this is likely to get 'political' now
I fully expect Man City to let off in the end |
Could see Trump wading into this, what with Abu Dhabi being a very close US ally. Plus the chance to put pressure on Britain (Trump will take any opportunity to bully someone). | |
| |
| So, according to this article on 13:25 - Oct 2 with 2395 views | Guthrum |
| So, according to this article on 13:19 - Oct 2 by bluestandard |
Not an expert, but it seems to me that their angle with this is to refute the fact that the CLUB itself made covert / disguised equity injections. By arguing that it was the Abu Dhabi government and not the club that made the payments, might there need to be further evidence that the club was essentially owned by the Abu Dhabi government? This might be harder to prove I'm guessing. It doesn't help the argument about the level of the sponsorship deals being unrealistic, but it might water down the sanctions against owner equity injections. |
There is still the matter of falsified documentation, tho. | |
| |
| So, according to this article on 13:46 - Oct 2 with 2299 views | BseaBlue |
| So, according to this article on 13:25 - Oct 2 by Guthrum |
There is still the matter of falsified documentation, tho. |
Exactly. Also, some of the charges were for non-cooperation which will also still require some form of action.
I'd be interested to know what proof the independent commission had of *alleged* false and dishonest evidence. You'd like to think that will require some serious punishment as well. |  | | |
| So, according to this article on 13:59 - Oct 2 with 2212 views | hype313 |
They have been saying for years that they have irrefutable evidence absolving them of any wrong doing, which has still yet to be seen.
Now they are threatening Burnham and the UK, saying they will pull investment out of UK.
This is why being owned by Nation States is ridiculous. |  |
| |
| So, according to this article on 14:04 - Oct 2 with 2183 views | BloomBlue |
Its already going down the political route, so watch for UEA putting pressure on the UK government by threatening to cancel orders, infrastructure investment etc.
It then comes down to either the government accepting that loss of investment or put UAE first and pressure the PL to rap City on the knuckles- ie break any more rules and we will kick you into league 2.
I'm going for the latter. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| So, according to this article on 14:14 - Oct 2 with 2130 views | giant_stow |
| So, according to this article on 13:23 - Oct 2 by Guthrum |
Could see Trump wading into this, what with Abu Dhabi being a very close US ally. Plus the chance to put pressure on Britain (Trump will take any opportunity to bully someone). |
I was wondering about Trump getting involved too, but more from the other side. Ie, to back up all the American billionaire owners of other prem clubs who would get screwed over by a light punishment. |  |
| |
| So, according to this article on 17:44 - Oct 2 with 1748 views | Nutkins_Return |
| So, according to this article on 13:13 - Oct 2 by Keno |
One suspects this is likely to get 'political' now
I fully expect Man City to let off in the end |
Not a chance in hell they are let off.
What will likely happen though is a lessoning of the sanctions and probably a bit of a negotiation. FA will want it to be strong enough to send out a serious message and not look to obviously watered down. Man City and the Saudi state will want it to be palatable enough not to take broader financial backing away front he whole country and not take all their money and stick it in Spain or Germany league for example.
3 division demotion becomes Chanpionship. 10 window embargo becomes 2.
Whatever anyone thinks this is problematic for the FA and actually the whole country.
I really hope they get still hammer them to a high degree. | |
| |
| So, according to this article on 17:53 - Oct 2 with 1731 views | _CliveBaker_ |
| So, according to this article on 13:13 - Oct 2 by Keno |
One suspects this is likely to get 'political' now
I fully expect Man City to let off in the end |
They won't be let off entirely, but from the start I can't help thinking this will end up in a bit of a compromise punishment that City will be quite satisfied with, and the Premier League will attempt to position as 'unprecedented' and commensurate to the crime. 40 point deduction or something, reduced to 36 on appeal will will all be for show and City end up finishing 16th for a year. Whoop-de-doo. |  | | |
| So, according to this article on 17:59 - Oct 2 with 1713 views | Scuzzer |
So the independent committee did not have this information given to them in their enquiry? So that means yet again Man City were withholding evidence. Why would they do this, unless it is a ploy to buy time while they concocted a cock and bull story to cover their tracks. To me this just makes things even worse for them. More than suspicious. Throw the book at them...and get Jofra Archer to do it. |  |
| |
| So, according to this article on 18:01 - Oct 2 with 1705 views | NBVJohn |
| So, according to this article on 13:13 - Oct 2 by Keno |
One suspects this is likely to get 'political' now
I fully expect Man City to let off in the end |
That will only make the current stink surrounding them worse. | | | |
| So, according to this article on 18:06 - Oct 2 with 1686 views | bartyg |
| So, according to this article on 17:59 - Oct 2 by Scuzzer |
So the independent committee did not have this information given to them in their enquiry? So that means yet again Man City were withholding evidence. Why would they do this, unless it is a ploy to buy time while they concocted a cock and bull story to cover their tracks. To me this just makes things even worse for them. More than suspicious. Throw the book at them...and get Jofra Archer to do it. |
No, there's no new evidence allowed at the appeal. |  |
| |
| So, according to this article on 18:10 - Oct 2 with 1650 views | bartyg |
| So, according to this article on 13:19 - Oct 2 by bluestandard |
Not an expert, but it seems to me that their angle with this is to refute the fact that the CLUB itself made covert / disguised equity injections. By arguing that it was the Abu Dhabi government and not the club that made the payments, might there need to be further evidence that the club was essentially owned by the Abu Dhabi government? This might be harder to prove I'm guessing. It doesn't help the argument about the level of the sponsorship deals being unrealistic, but it might water down the sanctions against owner equity injections. |
IMO it still wouldn't hit the bar of economic substance- if the AD government are subsidising the sponsorship deals or whatever, what benefit is this of to them?
Was reminded earlier that City explicitly argued in the earlier case against UEFA and at CAS that the entirety of the cash was from the sponsors, and the Etihad president actually gave evidence confirming this, which slightly undermines their new defence. | |
| |
| So, according to this article on 09:11 - Oct 3 with 1257 views | BlueandTruesince82 |
PL ceos already saying there is no appetite for expulsion from the PL (bet there would be if it was a non top 6 club). Champ ceos saying there is no sporting value if they are relegated to the champ as they will blow everyone out of the water.
Easily affordable fine and as you were with some asterisks incoming. |  |
| |
| So, according to this article on 09:28 - Oct 3 with 1218 views | Cheltenham_Blue |
Interesting that Citeh are saying the the judgement was wrong on “points of law”.
The panel doesn’t deal with points of law, but with the Premier League rules that Man City signed up to.
Of course City know this, but the language suggests that they will end up taking this to the high court, likely under anti-competition legislation. If they win, it could set a precedent on owner funding that will effectively end SCR |  |
| |
| So, according to this article on 09:33 - Oct 3 with 1206 views | Ryorry |
Given the mountains of hard evidence against them on various charges, the more they deny that and plead their "innocence", the stupider, more cynical and corrupt they look
Bearing in mind the relegation & 4-point deduction So'ton got for 'merely' spying, anything less than relegation & a huge points deduction for Citeh would look ridiculous.
L'pool fans on 11th Oct are getting their chants ready! |  |
| |
| So, according to this article on 10:21 - Oct 3 with 1139 views | Cheltenham_Blue |
| So, according to this article on 09:33 - Oct 3 by Ryorry |
Given the mountains of hard evidence against them on various charges, the more they deny that and plead their "innocence", the stupider, more cynical and corrupt they look
Bearing in mind the relegation & 4-point deduction So'ton got for 'merely' spying, anything less than relegation & a huge points deduction for Citeh would look ridiculous.
L'pool fans on 11th Oct are getting their chants ready! |
All of this. Citeh's owners seem intent on destroying football to maintain their current dominant position. I would be feeling really uncomfortable if I was a fan of theirs right now, with how the owners are currently irreparably tarnishing the reputation of the club.
The more the owners protest, the more tainted and questioned everything they ever win again will be.
On your last point, "L'pool fans on 11th Oct are getting their chants ready!", Its going to be quite some atmosphere at Anfield | |
| |
| So, according to this article on 11:05 - Oct 3 with 1100 views | Olcol |
| So, according to this article on 09:33 - Oct 3 by Ryorry |
Given the mountains of hard evidence against them on various charges, the more they deny that and plead their "innocence", the stupider, more cynical and corrupt they look
Bearing in mind the relegation & 4-point deduction So'ton got for 'merely' spying, anything less than relegation & a huge points deduction for Citeh would look ridiculous.
L'pool fans on 11th Oct are getting their chants ready! |
Southampton were not relegated for spying, they got kicked out of play offs and given -4 point deduction for this season.
Man City should stay in premier league and be made to play all games this season with -114 ponts deduction. They should be banned from purchasing new players for next 5 windows. They must be forced to pay all fees to former clubs of purchased players when due. It is important that the punishment does not negatively effect other teams.
This in my opinion is the minimum punishment. Any less than this and the premier league is dead and clubs like Man City are taking the piss. | | | |
| So, according to this article on 11:19 - Oct 3 with 1064 views | stonojnr |
the appeal doesnt have to be remotely valid to our eyes, its simply about prolonging the process in the hope they might find some loophole they can use, or the whole thing collapses under the sheer weight of time, lack of witness protection, political pressure that can be bought in the meantime.
or simply they hope another panel finds things completely differently, its one of those classic situations where they have everything to lose accepting the decision, but absolutely nothing except money (which they dont have a problem finding) to lose by appealing
they were always going to appeal, because the consequences of them not doing so, will have such a big impact on the club and its short term future at least, it would have been more shocking had they simply accepted the decisions. | | | |
| So, according to this article on 11:47 - Oct 3 with 1002 views | skinnybob72 |
| So, according to this article on 17:53 - Oct 2 by _CliveBaker_ |
They won't be let off entirely, but from the start I can't help thinking this will end up in a bit of a compromise punishment that City will be quite satisfied with, and the Premier League will attempt to position as 'unprecedented' and commensurate to the crime. 40 point deduction or something, reduced to 36 on appeal will will all be for show and City end up finishing 16th for a year. Whoop-de-doo. |
If they were to be given a fairly meaningless penalty - such as a points deduction that didn't mean relegation - could the other 19 clubs, in protest, refuse to play against City? However you look at this every other club has been cheated by City for years, and they have the right to expect severe repercussions. | | | |
| So, according to this article on 11:54 - Oct 3 with 985 views | HighgateBlue |
| So, according to this article on 09:28 - Oct 3 by Cheltenham_Blue |
Interesting that Citeh are saying the the judgement was wrong on “points of law”.
The panel doesn’t deal with points of law, but with the Premier League rules that Man City signed up to.
Of course City know this, but the language suggests that they will end up taking this to the high court, likely under anti-competition legislation. If they win, it could set a precedent on owner funding that will effectively end SCR |
It's uncontroversial that the league's rules operate contractually between the clubs and the league (the High Court has confirmed this, but it's obvious from first principles).
The proper interpretation of those contractual provisions is a question of law. The question whether MCFC has breached those contractual rules is a question of law.
When the panel makes a decision, it makes findings of fact (what happened and when), and it makes legal determinations. When appealing a decision in the Court system, the rules governing that appeal are the Civil Procedure Rules. Typically the appeal is a review rather than a rehearing (i.e. "was the original decision wrong?", rather than "would I, the appeal judge, have made a different decision based on some discretion I had?" or "let me hear all of the evidence again and see whether I come to a different view".
Unless an appeal proceeds as a total rehearing of all the evidence, it's very hard to overturn findings of fact. So the appellant has to come up with a point of law that they say the original decision maker got wrong. It may be that they misinterpreted a statute or a contractual provision, or misapplied a precedent, or they drew a conclusion from factual findings that did not logically follow, or they adopted a process that was not in accordance with the law and unfair.
An appeal by MCFC would proceed under Section W of the PL handbook. Rule W.92 provides that unless fresh evidence is admitted under W.88, an appeal shall be by way of a "review of the evidence" adduced before the Commission. That's slightly odd wording - it talks of a review of the evidence, rather than a review of the initial panel's /decision/. Rule W.88 basically only allows new evidence at the appeal stage if that evidence wasn't available previously.
So there is a rule that allows for a party to seek to adduce fresh evidence (this exists under the Civil Procedure Rules too, and is similarly hard to satisfy), but the use of the word "review" indicates that this is much more "did the original panel get it wrong?" rather than "right, let's start again".
Given how difficult it generally is to challenge findings of fact, because the original panel heard the witnesses' live evidence, and so were in a much better position to assess whether they were lying or not, an appeal on a point of law is clearly going to be the most realistic way of MCFC having a chance.
From the reports we've heard, it may well be that MCFC argue that the panel was wrong as a matter of law to categorise particular payments in a particular way under the various financial rules that applied at the time. That is a question of interpretation of the rules, and applying those rules to the facts as found. So it's a legal ground of appeal rather than an appeal against a factual finding.
That's why they are saying they are appealing on points of law. It's the typical phrase used to refer to an appeal which is not an appeal based on a challenge to the decision makers' factual findings.
I've got no idea whether MCFC may ultimately end up using competition legislation to try to challenge aspects of the PL's rules (as they have before), but I don't see the use of this language as having any particular bearing on that. |  | | |
| So, according to this article on 16:07 - Oct 3 with 732 views | SuffolkPunchFC |
| So, according to this article on 09:28 - Oct 3 by Cheltenham_Blue |
Interesting that Citeh are saying the the judgement was wrong on “points of law”.
The panel doesn’t deal with points of law, but with the Premier League rules that Man City signed up to.
Of course City know this, but the language suggests that they will end up taking this to the high court, likely under anti-competition legislation. If they win, it could set a precedent on owner funding that will effectively end SCR |
It would be an interesting tactic, although far from guarranteed to help the club.
Although anti-competitive legislation applies to the commercial aspects of a sport, the courts apply the "specificity of sport" principle, meaning rules that restrict competition may be permissible if they are transparent, non-discriminatory, and proportionate to achieving a legitimate sporting objective (such as maintaining competitive balance, integrity, or athlete health)
The PL would clearly by arguing the need for competitive balance should Citeh take that route. I think they're pretty fvc*ed unless they pull a real rabbit from the hat on this one. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
