The English Football Thread

[Fulham Broadway 16,977]

16 minutes ago, Laylabelle said:

Saw posted somewhere newspaper posted who missed out so who could be gained if stripped..a League Cup for us yippee lol

Premier League

Manchester United (2012)

Liverpool (2014)

Manchester United (2018)

Liverpool (2019)

Manchester United (2021)

Liverpool (2022)

 

FA Cup

Stoke City (2011)

Watford (2019)

 

League Cup

Sunderland (2014)

Liverpool (2016)

Arsenal (2018)

Chelsea (2019)

Aston Villa (2020)

Tottenham Hotspur (2021)

Thing is once they start investigating Liverpool, Utd, us, goons, and others  -it will just be ''They're all at it'', massive fines and revenue for the FA to squander.

[Blue Armour 4,336]

Whatever happens, they should not be stripped off previous titles or accolades.

That just leaves a bad taste in the mouths of the fans, and plus - it also takes away the achievements from some of the great players and managers who have represented City. I don't think those guys should be punished for that.

This isn't like Juve who were involved in actual match fixing.

 

[cosmicway 1,333]

What exactly did City (and Juventus) do ?
Where is the offense ?
I know we received a transfer ban once for spending too much money (breach of fiinancial fair play) and another time for bringing too many youngsters from Africa.
But this is different. 
What sort of offenses did they commit ?

[milka 3,362]

 

[Laylabelle 9,408]

2 hours ago, milka said:

 

I get why they could leave the league bit if they keep the players they have and all seems pointless. Unless something drastic happens they'll fly back and take someone else's place

[cosmicway 1,333]

I remember a somewhat similare case back in 1983.
AEK Athens signed Trevor Ross from Everton.
They said the cost was 250,000 pounds but after investigation it was half that amount.
The reason ? AEK club president had already borrowed 650,000 to the club and to get some of it back he inflated Ross's trasfer fee.
The PASOK government did n't like this man because he supported the opposition party so they investigated things and found the irregularity.
But this had no implications for the club - only the club president (Panagidis) had to resign.
Nowadays this sort of thing is punishable ?

[Vegetable 830]

3 hours ago, milka said:

 

Yeah, that surely could happen. In the world, where money and politics doesn't exist.

[Vesper 29,225]

Man City charges explained: The accusations, possible punishments and what happens next

https://theathletic.com/4160366/2023/02/06/manchester-city-financial-charges-explained/

The various debates surrounding Manchester City took an abrupt turn shortly after 10am (GMT) on Monday.

Conversations over the breakfast table had been about how the world’s most potent striker might have made the team worse, did Joao Cancelo really have to go for getting the hump at being dropped or why Pep Guardiola was moaning about the Manchester to London commute now.

But as work started, lessons commenced and daytime TV was switched on, the talk took a rather more serious tone.

Suddenly, everyone was reaching for their copy of the Premier League handbook, arguing about whether Saracens, Lance Armstrong or Juventus was a better precedent for what might happen next, and quoting legal opinions about statutes of limitations.

If consensus has emerged, it is that the Premier League’s decision to hit Manchester City with more than 100 financial fair play-related charges is unprecedented, surprising and potentially transformative in terms of the football landscape.

Here, The Athletic sets out what has happened, why it has happened now and where this goes next.

---

What have Manchester City been accused of?

The Premier League announced the extraordinary news in a 736-word statement — published without fanfare on its website and listed below articles on Harry Kane, Sean Dyche and Fantasy Premier League tips — which revealed City have been “referred to an independent commission” over the alleged rule-breaking.

This relates to a series of alleged breaches of financial rules between the 2009-10 and 2017-18 seasons.

City are accused by the Premier League of not providing accurate financial information, “in particular with respect to its revenue (including sponsorship revenue), its related parties and its operating costs”.

The club are also accused of not fully disclosing managerial remuneration for a four-year period. These related to the 2009-10 to 2012-13 seasons, when Roberto Mancini was in charge.

They also stand accused of breaching Premier League rules on profit and sustainability in 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18.

GO DEEPER

The Premier League’s Manchester City statement — a line-by-line annotation

The Premier League has additionally alleged City did not comply with UEFA’s regulations around club licensing and financial fair play in 2013-14 and between 2014-15 and 2017-18.

City were banned from European competitions for two years by UEFA for alleged breaches of its FFP regulations in February 2020. The sanction was overturned by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in July of the same year, however.

What have Manchester City said?

City expressed their “surprise” at the Premier League’s charges and pushed back against claims they had failed to cooperate fully with the investigation.

A club statement read: “Manchester City FC is surprised by the issuing of these alleged breaches of the Premier League Rules, particularly given the extensive engagement and vast amount of detailed materials that the EPL has been provided with.

“The club welcomes the review of this matter by an independent commission, to impartially consider the comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence that exists in support of its position.

“As such, we look forward to this matter being put to rest once and for all.”

City are determined to defend themselves against the allegations and are confident of doing so.

Club officials only learned of the charges on Monday morning in a call with the Premier League, which was still ongoing when the news broke.

City also noted the timing of the Premier League’s announcement and believe it was linked to the planned white paper on football governance, which was due to be released this week.

That has now been pushed back, but City believe the Premier League used its intended release as an opportunity to demonstrate that it can govern amid calls for an independent regulator (more on that below).

City successfully appealed against UEFA’s two-year Champions League ban at CAS in 2020, when the court ruled “most of the alleged breaches were either not established or time-barred”.

---

Coverage of the Man City allegations on The Athletic…

• The Premier League’s Manchester City statement — a line-by-line annotation
• Premier League accuses Man City of alleged financial breaches

---

There are no such time-barring restrictions on the Premier League’s investigation, but City believe they would have won the case against UEFA regardless and therefore welcome what they believe is a chance to fully clear their name.

Pep Guardiola is expected to speak about the charges for the first time on Friday, in his pre-match press conference for Sunday’s Premier League home game against Aston Villa.

The City manager has previously suggested he would quit if he discovered he had been misled by the club over their adherence to financial regulations.

“Why did I defend the club and the people? It’s because I work with them,” he said in May 2022, referring to the UEFA case. “When they are accused of something I ask them, ‘Tell me about that’. They explain and I believe them.

“I said to them, ‘If you lie to me, the day after I am not here. I will be out and I will not be your friend anymore. I put my faith in you because I believe you 100 per cent from day one and I defend the club because of that’.”

---

What punishments could City face?

The potential punishments are outlined in rule W.51 of the Premier League’s handbook, with a range of potential options for the panel to consider if City are found to have broken the rules.

Sanctions range from a reprimand and fines to points deductions — and even expulsion from the Premier League.

Any points deduction could be applied when the decision is made or retrospectively, raising the prospect of City being stripped of titles.

“I would expect that if there is a points deduction, it would be applied going forward,” says James Hill, a legal director specialising in sports regulatory matters at Onside Law.

“Generally, panels don’t like deciding titles in a court process. Doing it that way does not give a real tangible punishment to the club.”

According to rule W.51.7, the panel could choose to combine any number of the punishments outlined in the rulebook or impose other sanctions they deem appropriate.

However, any punishment would need to be proportionate to the breaches in question or it could be overturned by appeal.

---

What happens next?

Murray Rosen KC, a barrister at 4 New Square Chambers, chairs the Premier League’s independent judicial panel and was appointed to the role in 2020.

 

Rosen’s profile on 4 New Square Chambers’ website describes him as someone who has a “formidable reputation as a tenacious advocate” and as a “neutral who resolves disputes rather than still fighting them”. It also highlights that he is a member of Arsenal FC.

In this case, it is likely Rosen will select a three-person panel. Because the charges relate to alleged financial breaches, one of the panel members will have to be a financial expert.

Rosen is also an arbitrator for CAS. City will not be able to appeal to that court, though, which is something they did successfully in their case against UEFA.

The reason they can’t appeal to CAS is because the Switzerland-based court does not have jurisdiction over this English arbitration process.

Given the Premier League’s investigation into City took more than four years, it is unlikely the independent panel will come to a conclusion in the near future. This has the potential to take months.

Should either City or the Premier League decide to appeal against the panel’s verdict, then there is a process where a separate panel would convene to review any possible appeal.

---

Who are the relevant figures at Manchester City?

Previous allegations about Mancini’s contract, published by German news outlet Der Spiegel, alleged a company linked to the Italian issued invoices to the Abu Dhabi United Group, City’s holding company, presided over by owner Sheikh Mansour. Mansour is the deputy prime minister of the United Arab Emirates, the brother of the president, and a member of the ruling family of Abu Dhabi.

Simon Pearce, a City director and an adviser to the Abu Dhabi ruling family, allegedly witnessed the agreement. Pearce also featured in a number of the leaked emails, which ultimately did not lead to any punishments.

Jorge Chumillas was another to feature in the Der Spiegel allegations and has been chief financial officer at the City Football Group since January 2013.

Garry Cook was City chief executive between 2008 and 2011, having previously worked at Nike, and he was succeeded by Ferran Soriano, former economic vice-president at Barcelona, in 2012.

Khaldoon Al Mubarak has been City’s chairman since 2008, one of countless significant roles he holds in sport and beyond. He serves in several senior different capacities within the Abu Dhabi government, is chairman of City’s sister clubs Melbourne City and Mumbai City, chief executive and managing director of the Mubadala Investment Company, and chairman of the board of a nuclear energy company, an aluminium conglomerate and Abu Dhabi commercial bank.

The charges go back as far as 2009. Why has this taken so long?

Just for context, Mark Hughes was Manchester City’s manager in 2009, 16-year-old Loris Karius joined the academy, Gareth Barry and Roque Santa Cruz were the first big summer signings and Dedryck Boyata ended the season as the club’s young player of the year. It was a long time ago.

But it has taken this long to reach this point because the allegations did not come to light until November 2018, when Der Spiegel published that series of sensational stories over the period of a week.

It claimed Manchester City’s owners had been funnelling money into the club via inflated sponsorship deals with UAE-based companies in order to circumvent UEFA’s FFP rules. It also said the club had been hiding some of its costs, too, by keeping some key salaries and image-rights payments off the books.

These allegations were based on emails stolen by Rui Pinto, the Portuguese whistleblower behind the Football Leaks dossier of hacked documents.

Once the dust settled and everyone’s ears stopped ringing, the club entered into a 20-month tug-of-war with European football’s governing body UEFA, which went one way and then the other, until City claimed victory at CAS in July 2020.

The Premier League, however, was just warming up. It started investigating the hacked emails and what they might mean for its rulebook at the same time as UEFA — December 2018. What has ensued since then can be likened to trench warfare, with City contesting every inch of ground.

Until Monday’s charges were announced, the only glimpse the rest of us had got of this fight came in July 2021, when Lord Justice Males decided to publish a ruling that revealed the glacial nature of the investigation, which at that point was already two and a half years old.

City, it emerged, had spent months refusing to release documents to the league, then spent several more months objecting to the arbitration panel the league had set up to rule on the matter. City lost these arguments but then appealed against them, only to lose that, too, before we then had another row about whether this wrangling should be made public or not.

If that took two and a half years, it is easy to see how a thorough examination of the documents and deliberations over possible charges took another year and a half. And now the real arguments can begin.

---

What does this mean for other Premier League clubs? Could they sue if City are found guilty?

Put it this way, if Manchester City are found to have breached all the rules the Premier League has accused them of breaking, then you would expect other clubs to be circling — especially ones who, let’s say, finished second to them, missed out on a Champions League spot or were defeated by City in a cup final.

One sports lawyer’s opinion was that he did not see how City’s domestic rivals could mount a legal claim over football regulations.

This view, however, was disputed by another sports lawyer (both lawyers requested to speak anonymously to protect their positions). One club executive also felt there could be scope to make legal claims if City are found guilty. This serves to highlight how contentious it is going to be once the findings of the commission are announced.

The most obvious precedent of one club suing another is the Sheffield United and West Ham saga relating to Carlos Tevez.

After Sheffield United were relegated in 2007, they argued that Tevez’s goals kept West Ham up, despite the London club having earlier been fined by the Premier League for breaking rules on third-party player ownership.

Sheffield United were awarded £20million, with their legal claim taking broadcast revenues, sponsorship, merchandising and ticket sales into account.

More recently, clubs have threatened to sue each other without following through. Middlesbrough and Wycombe Wanderers both sought compensation from Derby County after the latter was punished for breaching the English Football League’s financial rules.

---

How does this impact City playing in UEFA competitions?

Until these charges are heard by the panel, nothing has changed. Manchester City have been licensed to play in the Champions League and can look forward to their last-16 tie against RB Leipzig later this month.

But among more than 100 different charges the club face are five related to the Premier League rule that its member clubs must comply with the regulations and licensing requirements of several third parties, most notably the Football Association, FIFA and UEFA.

The actual licence clubs need to participate in European club competitions is awarded by UEFA’s relevant member association, which in City’s case is the FA. So, City could have some explaining to do there, as well.

But, just to reiterate the most important point, nothing has been proven at this stage, so City can continue their pursuit of a first Champions League title. And while that may sound a little awkward, UEFA is used to having potential Champions League winners on the naughty step. City have been there before, Paris Saint-Germain have twice been sanctioned for breaking FFP rules and Real Madrid won last year’s crown despite refusing to quit the European Super League project.

---

Remind us what happened with City and UEFA…

UEFA’s investigation started immediately after those Der Spiegel revelations, as its FFP rules were — and still are — much tighter than the Premier League’s in terms of permitted annual losses. If City were artificially inflating their revenues and disguising costs, they were doing so primarily to circumvent UEFA’s rulebook, not the Premier League’s.

So, UEFA had to act quicker than the English league and announced a formal investigation into possible FFP breaches in March 2019.

Eleven months later, the adjudication chamber of its FFP watchdog, the Club Financial Control Body, ruled City had misstated their annual accounts between 2012 and 2016 to the tune of £200million. It also said the club had not cooperated with its investigation. The punishment for these offences was a two-year ban from European competition and a €30million (£26.8m, $32.2m) fine.

But five months later, in July 2020, a three-man CAS panel cleared City of the most serious charge — overstating revenues — by a majority verdict.

Some of UEFA’s charges were time-barred, in that they were outside the organisation’s five-year statute of limitations, but most of them were simply “not established”, as far as the panel was concerned.

Understandably, City celebrated what they considered to be a thorough vindication of their claims of innocence, while UEFA was left looking weak and incompetent.

City were, however, fined €10million for not cooperating with the investigation.

---

The government’s white paper on football regulation was due to be released on Wednesday but has been pushed back. What can we read into that?

We probably should not read too much into the delay from a Premier League versus Manchester City point of view.

If anything, the league was rushing to get these charges out before the white paper’s publication this week, as it is very keen to demonstrate that it can apply its own rulebook and does not need a helping hand from an independent regulator. That is certainly the suspicion among some at Manchester City.

But this latest delay in setting out the government’s response to the fan-led review that former sports minister Tracey Crouch completed in November 2021 is more to do with the government’s desire to generate some much-needed positive media coverage.

The white paper, which is expected to set out legislation for creating an independent football regulator, has been ready for months.

It was originally held up when then-UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson was forced to resign last year, with his successor Liz Truss being instinctively opposed to calls for greater regulation. She, however, did not last long, and with Labour, the opposition party, now firmly behind calls for a regulator, the government got back on board with the plan.

But then the World Cup got in the way, then it was Christmas, then there were workers’ strikes and a cost-of-living crisis, then it was something else that might keep this announcement out of the bulletins and off the front pages. We do not know what announcement or event is coming on Wednesday, but somebody in the government’s media planning team has spotted it and pushed the football white paper back again.

In the meantime, football continues to demonstrate why it is not best left alone to police itself.

[cosmicway 1,333]

Yeah but what are these charges tantamount to in the real world ?
Match fixing ? Does n't look like it.
Tax evasion ? Money laundering ?

A somewhat similar situation was the one I described with Trevor Ross and AEK Athens.
But this had to do with the president cheating the other board members, or allegedly doing so.
The president had to step down but there were no implications for the club, actual or anticipated.

Another one was the notorious Koskotas case in 1989. Koskotas was the president of Olympiakos Piraeus and also the president of the bank of Crete.
He inappropriately used funds of the bank of Crete to buy Lajos Detari from Eintracht Frankfurt as well as he inappropriately used more funds for other financial ventures.
In that case Olympiakos was in trouble but the club managed to avoid punishment. Koskotas stepped down (and went to prison) and the new board had to sell the player
and give the money to the bank (Detari moved to Bologna).
But all this again was a case of fraud against the bank really - a criminal case.

In the case of City what is the crime ?

 

Edited February 8, 2023 by cosmicway

[Fulham Broadway 16,977]

8 hours ago, cosmicway said:

In the case of City what is the crime ?

Over 100 breaches of financial regulations. See above.

[cosmicway 1,333]

1 hour ago, Fulham Broadway said:

Over 100 breaches of financial regulations. See above.

I mean what do those breaches represent in terms of unlawful activity ?

[Fulham Broadway 16,977]

40 minutes ago, cosmicway said:

I mean what do those breaches represent in terms of unlawful activity ?

Theyve broken financial regulations within the rules of the governing bodies, thats why they are facing sanctions. Not sure what your point is.

[TheHulk 1,963]

Leeds is pathetic, doubt they hold on to the draw.

[guddy69 174]

16 minutes ago, TheHulk said:

Leeds is pathetic, doubt they hold on to the draw.

is it over yet..

[Laylabelle 9,408]

6 minutes ago, guddy69 said:

is it over yet..

Now it is..2-2

[cosmicway 1,333]

36 minutes ago, Fulham Broadway said:

Theyve broken financial regulations within the rules of the governing bodies, thats why they are facing sanctions. Not sure what your point is.

The point is those financial rules exist to do what ?
To prevent tax evasion, money laundering, embezzling, what ?

[Fulham Broadway 16,977]

7 hours ago, cosmicway said:

The point is those financial rules exist to do what ?
To prevent tax evasion, money laundering, embezzling, what ?

. In respect of each of Seasons 2009/10 to 2017/18 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those seasons that required provision by a member club to the Premier League, in the utmost good faith, of accurate financial information that gives a true and fair view of the club's financial position, in particular with respect to its revenue (including sponsorship revenue), its related parties and its operating costs, namely:

(a) for Season 2009/10, Premier League Rules B.13, C.71, C.72, C.75 (amended to C.79 from 10 September 2009 for the remainder of Season 2009/10) and C.80;

(b) for Season 2010/11, Premier League Rules B.13, C.78, C.79, C.86 and C.87;

(c) for Season 2011/12, Premier League Rules B.13, E.3, 4, E.11 and E.12;

(d) for Season 2012/13, Premier League Rules 16, E.3, E.4, E.11 and E.12;

(e) for Season 2013/14, Premier League Rules 15, E.3, E.4, E.11, E.12 and E.49;

(f) for Season 2014/15, Premier League Rules 16, E.3, E.4, E.11, E.12 and E.50;

(g) for Season 2015/16, Premier League Rules 16, E.3, E.4, E.11, E.12 and E.50;

(h) for Season 2016/17, Premier League Rules16, E.3, E.4, E.11, E.12 and E.51; and

(i) for Season 2017/18, Premier League Rules B.16, 3, E.4, E.11, E.12 and E.51.

2. In respect of:

(a) each of Seasons 2009/10 to 2012/13 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those Seasons requiring a member club to include full details of manager remuneration in its relevant contracts with its manager, namely:

(1) for Seasons 2009/10 to 2011/12 inclusive, Premier League Rules Q.7 and Q.8; and

(2) for Season 2012/13, Premier League Rules P.7 and P.8; and

(b) each of Seasons 2010/11 to 2015/16 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those Seasons requiring a member club to include full details of player remuneration in its relevant contracts with its players, namely:

(1) for Seasons 2010/11 and 2011/12, Premier League Rules K.12 and K.20;

(2) for Season 2012/13, Premier League Rules T.12 and T.20;

(3) for Seasons 2013/14 and 2014/15, Premier League Rules T.12 and T.19; and

(4) for Season 2015/16, Premier League Rules T.13 and T.20.

3. In respect of each of Seasons 2013/14 to 2017/18 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those Seasons requiring a member club to comply with UEFA's regulations, including UEFA's Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations, namely:

(a) for Season 2013/14, Premier League Rule B.14.6; and

(b) for Seasons 2014/15 to 2017/18 inclusive, Premier League Rule B.15.6.

4. In respect of each of the Seasons 2015/16 to 2017/18 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those Seasons on Profitability and Sustainability, namely:

(a) for Season 2015/16, Premier League Rules E.52 to E.60; and

(b) for Seasons 2016/17 and 2017/18, Premier League Rules E.53 to E.60.

5. In respect of the period from December 2018 to date, the Premier League Rules applicable in the relevant Seasons requiring a member club to cooperate with, and assist, the Premier League in its investigations, including by providing documents and information to the Premier League in the utmost good faith, namely:

(a) for Season 2018/19, Premier League Rules B.16, B.19, W.1, W.2, W.12 and W.13;

(b) for Season 2019/20, Premier League Rules B.16, B.19, W.1, W.2, W.12 and W.13;

(c) for Season 2020/21, Premier League Rules B.16, B.19, W.1, W.2, W.12 and W.13;

(d) for Season 2021/22, Premier League Rules B.15, B.18, W.1, W.2, W.15 and W.16; and

(e) for Season 2022/23, Premier League Rules B.15, B.18, W.1, W.2, W.15 and W.16.

 

[Special Juan 27,553]

United are an absolute disgrace, they really are. Fernandes is the biggest fucking cunt on two legs- Theatrics, screaming at officials, claiming for everything cannot stand watching them as a team and as a whole.

The crowd are just as bad, they literally rise to their feet for everything, disgraceful set of fans and players