Manchester City have been charged by the Premier League with numerous alleged breaches of financial rules.
The charges relate to financial information regarding revenue, details of manager and player remuneration, UEFA regulations, profitability and sustainability and co-operation with Premier League investigations.
The Premier League has referred the alleged offences - which date back to the 2009/10 season - to an independent commission.
Manchester City have been charged by the Premier League with numerous alleged breaches of financial rules.
The charges relate to financial information regarding revenue, details of manager and player remuneration, UEFA regulations, profitability and sustainability and co-operation with Premier League investigations.
The Premier League has referred the alleged offences - which date back to the 2009/10 season - to an independent commission.
Man City may well have had some questionable dealings in the past. But this seems to me to be unfair.
The alleged offences apparently relate to lack of info/transparency in relation to Manager remuneration between 2009-13. player remuneration between 2013-18, and Rules relating to profitability and sustainability between 2015 and 2018. Let's look at that in a little more detail:-
1. Manager remuneration. That would be between 10 and 14 years ago. That is a long time ago. Would need to be Fraud (or similar) for that to be legally relevant after all this time 2. Player remuneration/sustainability. A lot of this has already been subject to considerable litigation. Ultimately, the case in relation to very similar matters in relation to FFP was found not to have been substantiated (or at least worthy of punishment) by UEFA's appeal body, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) for the years 2012-16.
At Civil (as opposed to Criminal) Law it is extremely rare that you can relitigate something afresh without appealing the original case. Because (rightly or wrongly) those questionable dealings have already been answered.
Unless there is very clear evidence of fraud, I can't see this going anywhere. I also cannot understand why the Premier League felt able to make all this public.
I'm sure most people get really bored by legal stuff. But I will try and explain why this action may be difficult.
The normal time limit for most breaches of Contract in the UK is 6 years. The main exception to this is contained in section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980.
In simple terms, this states that, where there is fraud or deliberate concealment, the 6 years does not begin until the other side knew, or with reasonable diligence should have known, about the matter.
That is why the Premier League are stating that they have been investigating since 2018. But-with the greatest of respect to the EPL-"should have known with reasonable diligence" is not a date to be selected by the Premier League. There have been major question marks since the signing of Robinho for £32 million in 2008. 15 years ago.
Legal proceedings have to be issued within 6 years of "should have known". That looks problematic.
Meanwhile Chelsea have just spent £300 million while looking likely that their income will plummet due to not being in the Champions League next season.
‘We will be fighting all of the charges. Our partnership with renewable energy firm Masdar is completely legitimate,’ said Man City chairman, Khaldoon Al Mubarak.
@Essexphil You are obviously looking at this from your legal background relating to the laws of the land. Surely these charges relate to whether they broke Premier League rules which they must have agreed to abide by. Aren't they two completely different things? And different limitations could apply?
I was there that night with me dad who was raging saying he'll never go again and he didn't but i was hooked , hooked for a lifetime of misery* * Except when we used to beat arsenal
@Essexphil You are obviously looking at this from your legal background relating to the laws of the land. Surely these charges relate to whether they broke Premier League rules which they must have agreed to abide by. Aren't they two completely different things? And different limitations could apply?
No. And, with the exception of reducing time limits, no.
Comments
Leeds fans not happy
I don't know who's who in this one but it at Millwall/Sunderland
The charges relate to financial information regarding revenue, details of manager and player remuneration, UEFA regulations, profitability and sustainability and co-operation with Premier League investigations.
The Premier League has referred the alleged offences - which date back to the 2009/10 season - to an independent commission.
The alleged offences apparently relate to lack of info/transparency in relation to Manager remuneration between 2009-13. player remuneration between 2013-18, and Rules relating to profitability and sustainability between 2015 and 2018. Let's look at that in a little more detail:-
1. Manager remuneration. That would be between 10 and 14 years ago. That is a long time ago. Would need to be Fraud (or similar) for that to be legally relevant after all this time
2. Player remuneration/sustainability. A lot of this has already been subject to considerable litigation. Ultimately, the case in relation to very similar matters in relation to FFP was found not to have been substantiated (or at least worthy of punishment) by UEFA's appeal body, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) for the years 2012-16.
At Civil (as opposed to Criminal) Law it is extremely rare that you can relitigate something afresh without appealing the original case. Because (rightly or wrongly) those questionable dealings have already been answered.
Unless there is very clear evidence of fraud, I can't see this going anywhere. I also cannot understand why the Premier League felt able to make all this public.
The normal time limit for most breaches of Contract in the UK is 6 years. The main exception to this is contained in section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980.
In simple terms, this states that, where there is fraud or deliberate concealment, the 6 years does not begin until the other side knew, or with reasonable diligence should have known, about the matter.
That is why the Premier League are stating that they have been investigating since 2018. But-with the greatest of respect to the EPL-"should have known with reasonable diligence" is not a date to be selected by the Premier League. There have been major question marks since the signing of Robinho for £32 million in 2008. 15 years ago.
Legal proceedings have to be issued within 6 years of "should have known". That looks problematic.
Meanwhile Chelsea have just spent £300 million while looking likely that their income will plummet due to not being in the Champions League next season.
‘We will be fighting all of the charges. Our partnership with renewable energy firm Masdar is completely legitimate,’ said Man City chairman, Khaldoon Al Mubarak.
‘I agree,’ said Masdar CEO, Khaldoon Al Mubarak.
You are obviously looking at this from your legal background relating to the laws of the land.
Surely these charges relate to whether they broke Premier League rules which they must have agreed to abide by.
Aren't they two completely different things?
And different limitations could apply?
* Except when we used to beat arsenal
I always said Yaya was bought with dodgy money , give us our FA Cup back
And, with the exception of reducing time limits, no.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/43314870