Leicester points deduction (3 Viewers)

[wingy]

Comparing the cases of Everton and Forest to the Man City situation is like comparing apples and pears. It is not that the Prem have been soft with Man City, it is a far more complex case involving not just the club but individuals who have the right to defend themselves and present their own defenses.

Everton and Forest were straight forward cases of spending too much in a given time period compared to the revenue coming in.

In the Manchester City case most of the 115 charges won't go anywhere unless the main 1 or 2 charges can be proved. In order to prove any over spend at Man City it has to be proved that they committed one of the worst and hardest to prove allegations in the business world. That is basically that accounts that have been submitted and accepted were basically false. In other words false, accounting fraud. Forget points deductions, directors and accounts potentially could go to prison. It could rumble on for years

That is why it has taken so long to date, not because anyone is soft on Manchester City but because it is a complex case and potentially immensely serious far beyond being deducted a few points.

So ultimately on trial then for their future existence, or on trial for individuals existence rather than club's?

 

---

[Hobo]

So ultimately on trial then for their future existence, or on trial for individuals existence rather than club's?

Well it is not just the clubs reputation at stake, some professional people's reputation and future's are on the line.

 

[wingy]

Well it is not just the clubs reputation at stake, some professional people's reputation and future's are on the line.

But acting on behalf?

 

[SwanLane]

Comparing the cases of Everton and Forest to the Man City situation is like comparing apples and pears. It is not that the Prem have been soft with Man City, it is a far more complex case involving not just the club but individuals who have the right to defend themselves and present their own defenses.

Everton and Forest were straight forward cases of spending too much in a given time period compared to the revenue coming in.

In the Manchester City case most of the 115 charges won't go anywhere unless the main 1 or 2 charges can be proved. In order to prove any over spend at Man City it has to be proved that they committed one of the worst and hardest to prove allegations in the business world. That is basically that accounts that have been submitted and accepted were basically false. In other words, false accounting; fraud. Forget points deductions; directors and accountants potentially could go to prison. It could rumble on for years

That is why it has taken so long to date, not because anyone is soft on Manchester City but because it is a complex case and potentially immensely serious far beyond being deducted a few points.

A big difference between Everton and Man City of course. My understanding though from everything I’ve read and heard is that the EPL still dragged their heels in bringing the charges, to the extent where serious questions were being asked about why they were seemingly reluctant to tackle alleged wrongdoing (which should me felt was obvious).

 

[SwanLane]

A big difference between Everton and Man City of course. My understanding though from everything I’ve read and heard is that the EPL still dragged their heels in bringing the charges, to the extent where serious questions were being asked about why they were seemingly reluctant to tackle alleged wrongdoing (which should me felt was obvious).

* which many felt was obvious

 

[wingy]

* which many felt was obvious

Certainly sounds it but who knows, Have got the nerve to plough on with punishment knowing what the effect would be, or turn a blind eye, feels like a seminal point in the games structure I think?

 

[Hobo]

A big difference between Everton and Man City of course. My understanding though from everything I’ve read and heard is that the EPL still dragged their heels in bringing the charges, to the extent where serious questions were being asked about why they were seemingly reluctant to tackle alleged wrongdoing (which should me felt was obvious).

'Was obvious' except their 'filed' accounts said otherwise. That is where the problem has been. It's calling and proving the 'filed' accounts were wrong. Without that proof there is little to answer to. This is not a football thing, it is not a football club thing, this potentially is a business law and a financial law thing on a grand scale.

 

[play_in_skyblue_stripes]

It’s not just PL clubs who are railing against FFP / PSR. The owners of Stoke are seriously wealthy and desperate to pump money into the club. But they can’t.

I think the upcoming Man City decision could be a seismic moment for the game in this country and Europe for many reasons.

City look to be near the end of a cycle:
- Few new signings
- squad is not old but ‘mature’
- Pep looks to have itchy feet

If they get a harsh punishment, they won’t take it lying down. It would probably incentivise them to Brexit away from the PL. Newcastle and Chelsea would be thinking the same. Barcelona, RM and Juve never gave up. PSG and Bayern could be tempted this time….

The EPL can’t exactly go soft on City. These 115 charges came about as a last ditch effort to avoid independent regulation:/ control. You’d assume that charging them with 115 separate offences means you expect (and probably need) at least half to stick, however expensive, creative and aggressive City’s lawyers might be.

My guess is they will go soft on them because they will belatedly realise they are about to kill their golden goose. But let’s not kid ourselves…., a slap on the wrist will make the EPL look like complete idiots.

If they go in hard (I.e. relegation or worse), I think it could trigger a chain reaction which starts the ‘super league’ quite quickly.

We refer to ourselves as City, Please refer to Manchester City as either Man City or Manchester City. It's confusing and also 'semi insulting ourselves'

 

[SwanLane]

Yeah fair point. I slipped a bit there.

 

[wingy]

'Was obvious' except their 'filed' accounts said otherwise. That is where the problem has been. It's calling and proving the 'filed' accounts were wrong. Without that proof there is little to answer to. This is not a football thing, it is not a football club thing, this potentially is a business law and a financial law thing on a grand scale.

But there can be no plea of ignorance on the owner behalf, it's simply, what is the outcome, severe punishment and destruction of the model,fine there will be other teams to take their place IMO,If the prem FA have big enough gonads for the challenge, and the TV companies who drive a lot of it?

 

[SwanLane]

'Was obvious' except their 'filed' accounts said otherwise. That is where the problem has been. It's calling and proving the 'filed' accounts were wrong. Without that proof there is little to answer to. This is not a football thing, it is not a football club thing, this potentially is a business law and a financial law thing on a grand scale.

For example, people were noticing that Man City were receiving commercial sponsorship far in excess of normal levels. Proving wrongdoing will be challenging, no dispute there. Wherever this ultimately goes, it’s currently with the EPL. And they stand accused of turning a blind eye until they were left with no option.

 

[Hobo]

But there can be no plea of ignorance on the owner behalf, it's simply, what is the outcome, severe punishment and destruction of the model,fine there will be other teams to take their place IMO,If the prem FA have big enough gonads for the challenge, and the TV companies who drive a lot of it?

The owner does have a get out clause. Law is complicated.

 

[Hobo]

But there can be no plea of ignorance on the owner behalf, it's simply, what is the outcome, severe punishment and destruction of the model,fine there will be other teams to take their place IMO,If the prem FA have big enough gonads for the challenge, and the TV companies who drive a lot of it?

I think you have an emotional simplistic view. Law, especially in a difficult to prove scenario is full of loop holes.

 

[wingy]

The owner does have a get out clause. Law is complicated.

So it's between the auditor's then for approving?

 

[SwanLane]

The owner does have a get out clause. Law is complicated.

I’m interested in where you see this going. Are you seeing it moving outside the EPL realm and into criminal areas or Antitrust (or both)?

 

[Hobo]

So it's between the auditor's then for approving?

That is why it is such a complex case. Also it could be that certain things where over valued or not?

It is not straight forward at all.

 

[wingy]

That is why it is such a complex case. Also it could be that certain things where over valued or not?

It is not straight forward at all.

But then you question why that element is overvalued don't you, it's still on the owner surely?
Looking forward to seeing them in court!

 

[Hobo]

I’m interested in where you see this going. Are you seeing it moving outside the EPL realm and into criminal areas or Antitrust (or both)?

If it can be proved that there is wrong doing it would definitely end in criminal proceeding. It is very serious submitting false accounts.

But remember, we are talking the most serious offences, which are some of the most difficult offences to prove in law.

So I wouldn't be surprised if most, if not all of these 115 charges fizzle away to nothing.

 

[wingy]

If it can be proved that there is wrong doing it would definitely end in criminal proceeding. It is very serious submitting false accounts.

But remember, we are talking the most serious offences, which are some of the most difficult offences to prove in law.

So I wouldn't be surprised if most, if not all of these 115 charges fizzle away to nothing.

Is this western interests meet the east here?

 

[Hobo]

But then you question why that element is overvalued don't you, it's still on the owner surely?
Looking forward to seeing them in court!

It is complex because it won't just be the club and it s owner that has to defend itself - if it gets that far

 

[Hobo]

Is this western interests meet the east here?

I don't know all the ins and outs or the details. Just a rough overview of how complex the case is. And people should not compare it to the Everton and Forest scenarios.

 

[wingy]

The sovereign wealth fund of Saudi certainly appear to have put the blocks on in the north east from what I see,gets you wondering where Houchens free port funds are going,and coming from!!

 

[SwanLane]

If it can be proved that there is wrong doing it would definitely end in criminal proceeding. It is very serious submitting false accounts.

But remember, we are talking the most serious offences, which are some of the most difficult offences to prove in law.

So I wouldn't be surprised if most, if not all of these 115 charges fizzle away to nothing.

Would be quite embarrassing for the EPL if they did just fizzle away. Would be interesting to see what the legal bills are on both sides at the end, regardless of the outcome.

 

[skybluericoh]

Plead guilty to 1or 2 charges, and have the rest ‘taken into account’ 12 points deduction.?
Money and power always looking after each other.

 

[Skyblue Bangkok]

Plead guilty to 1or 2 charges, and have the rest ‘taken into account’ 12 points deduction.?
Money and power always looking after each other.

As we see in life outside of football.

 

[HuckerbyDublinWhelan]

The overvalue thing is stupid aswell. If I was a billionaire and wanted to sponsor Coventry for 2 billion - who are the premier league to tell me what my sponsorship is worth.

I also read apparently there’s a lot of charges in that 115 that are standard minor charges are nothing more than a slap on the wrist

 

[fernandopartridge]

The overvalue thing is stupid aswell. If I was a billionaire and wanted to sponsor Coventry for 2 billion - who are the premier league to tell me what my sponsorship is worth.

I also read apparently there’s a lot of charges in that 115 that are standard minor charges are nothing more than a slap on the wrist

How is it stupid? It is a completely artificial arrangement designed solely to exploit the rules.

 

[Tommo1993]

The overvalue thing is stupid aswell. If I was a billionaire and wanted to sponsor Coventry for 2 billion - who are the premier league to tell me what my sponsorship is worth.

I also read apparently there’s a lot of charges in that 115 that are standard minor charges are nothing more than a slap on the wrist

Surely an accumulation of so many is worth a bit more than a warning?

 

[HuckerbyDublinWhelan]

How is it stupid? It is a completely artificial arrangement designed solely to exploit the rules.

it is an exploit. But you can’t dictate to anyone what a sponsorship is worth it’s up to the sponsor on that amount. It’s the same as the new transfer exploit. If a team wants to pay 30m for a player - you can’t say… “you can’t do that the player is only worth 6m”

Surely an accumulation of so many is worth a bit more than a warning?

Obviously there’s some real major ones but a lot do them are apparently minor and ones that are league wide

 

[fernandopartridge]

it is an exploit. But you can’t dictate to anyone what a sponsorship is worth it’s up to the sponsor on that amount. It’s the same as the new transfer exploit. If a team wants to pay 30m for a player - you can’t say… “you can’t do that the player is only worth 6m”


Obviously there’s some real major ones but a lot do them are apparently minor and ones that are league wide

I agree that you can't dictate what an independent sponsor wants to sponsor a team for, but that's not the argument. In this case the sponsor and the football club has a major conflict of interest.

 

[Macca1987]

I came into here expecting to see details or thoughts on what would happen to Leicester, but it seems to have been overtaken by the Man City affair

 

[HuckerbyDublinWhelan]

I agree that you can't dictate what an independent sponsor wants to sponsor a team for, but that's not the argument. In this case the sponsor and the football club has a major conflict of interest.

I suppose the only thing they can do is ban associated sponsors - but it gets messy when you look at how far you go back on this

 

[Terry Gibson's perm]

I came into here expecting to see details or thoughts on what would happen to Leicester, but it seems to have been overtaken by the Man City affair

If you read on any social media about Leicester or any of the other criminals all they say is what about Man City

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

If you read on any social media about Leicester or any of the other criminals all they say is what about Man City

The ‘reverse Andy Burnham’ defence

 

[steve cooper]

it is an exploit. But you can’t dictate to anyone what a sponsorship is worth it’s up to the sponsor on that amount. It’s the same as the new transfer exploit. If a team wants to pay 30m for a player - you can’t say… “you can’t do that the player is only worth 6m”


Obviously there’s some real major ones but a lot do them are apparently minor and ones that are league wide

You can't just look at one player being sold at a massively overvalued price and say that's ok if the buying club wants to pay it. If the buying club then sells another massively overpriced player back to the selling club, would that become the subject of an anti money laundering investigation? I don't know but I suspect it could under certain circumstances.
There is a big purge going on ATM in football regarding money laundering.