Man City Hearing

[downendcity]

What do we think the outcome will be?

Guilty of all/most charges and suffering relegation- or worse!

As above but with some sort of fudge judgement  - big fine and relatively minimal points deduction.

Guilty of some charges with a slap on the wrist punishment.

Not guilty and every other prem team given a points deduction.

Bailey Wright gets a 12 match ban whatever the outcome!

[Shauntaylor85]

2 minutes ago, downendcity said:

What do we think the outcome will be?

Guilty of all/most charges and suffering relegation- or worse!

As above but with some sort of fudge judgement  - big fine and relatively minimal points deduction.

Guilty of some charges with a slap on the wrist punishment.

Not guilty and every other prem team given a points deduction.

Bailey Wright gets a 12 match ban whatever the outcome!

Paying £85K a day to a top lawyer. Not convinced it will impact this season however. Probably suspended to next. 

[downendcity]

In so many legal cases I get the feeling that it's not so much a question of whether the accused actually did the deed, but whether their lawyer can beat the prosecution's lawyer.

In this case it's likely to be that money (Man City's) talks!

[ExiledAjax]

Honestly, it could go either way. It's an awfully long rap sheet composed of several differnt types of allegation, each carries a different burden of proof and a different potnetial set of punishments.

• 54x Failure to provide accurate financial information 2009-10 to 2017-18.
• 14x Failure to provide accurate details for player and manager payments from 2009-10 to 2017-18.
• 5x Failure to comply with UEFA's rules including Financial Fair Play (FFP) 2013-14 to 2017-18.
• 7x Breaching Premier League's PSR rules 2015-16 to 2017-18.
• 35x Failure to co-operate with Premier League investigations December 2018 - Feb 2023.

Just looking at the first 54 charges. Those, in more detail, require proving/disproving that the club provided "accurate financial information that gives a true and fair view of the club's financial position". The words "true" and "fair" are the key ones here. and those two words have been tested in case law across the decades. It's a high threshold, and therefore is one that is fairly easy to fail, so there may well be fault found there. But whether punishment is then levied on the club will be influenced by mitigating and aggravating factors, who knew about any fault, and they will likely also consider whether the fault was material - including whether it likely gave Man City any competitive advantage.

The final 35 charges of failure to co-operate are probably the easiest to prove...but they will also carry the lightest potential punishment.

Honestly, the case is so complex that it is very hard to predict. The recent PSR cases have very little bearing on this at all btw. In most of the charges case they dealt with a different regime, different facts, different allegations. They may be considered in part, obviously in relation to the 7 allegations of PSR breach, but also in particular as both the Forest and Everton cases consider in some detail how/when "financial fuckery" might give a club a competitive advantage.

8 minutes ago, downendcity said:

In so many legal cases I get the feeling that it's not so much a question of whether the accused actually did the deed, but whether their lawyer can beat the prosecution's lawyer.

In this case it's likely to be that money (Man City's) talks!

Both sides have top, top, top lawyers. One set will win and the others will lose, but it's not a case of one side having so much more money that they can hire lawyers from a different stratosphere.

Edited Monday at 08:39 by ExiledAjax

[downendcity]

22 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Honestly, it could go either way. It's an awfully long rap sheet composed of several differnt types of allegation, each carries a different burden of proof and a different potnetial set of punishments.

• 54x Failure to provide accurate financial information 2009-10 to 2017-18.
• 14x Failure to provide accurate details for player and manager payments from 2009-10 to 2017-18.
• 5x Failure to comply with UEFA's rules including Financial Fair Play (FFP) 2013-14 to 2017-18.
• 7x Breaching Premier League's PSR rules 2015-16 to 2017-18.
• 35x Failure to co-operate with Premier League investigations December 2018 - Feb 2023.

Just looking at the first 54 charges. Those, in more detail, require proving/disproving that the club provided "accurate financial information that gives a true and fair view of the club's financial position". The words "true" and "fair" are the key ones here. and those two words have been tested in case law across the decades. It's a high threshold, and therefore is one that is fairly easy to fail, so there may well be fault found there. But whether punishment is then levied on the club will be influenced by mitigating and aggravating factors, who knew about any fault, and they will likely also consider whether the fault was material - including whether it likely gave Man City any competitive advantage.

The final 35 charges of failure to co-operate are probably the easiest to prove...but they will also carry the lightest potential punishment.

Honestly, the case is so complex that it is very hard to predict. The recent PSR cases have very little bearing on this at all btw. In most of the charges case they dealt with a different regime, different facts, different allegations. They may be considered in part, obviously in relation to the 7 allegations of PSR breach, but also in particular as both the Forest and Everton cases consider in some detail how/when "financial fuckery" might give a club a competitive advantage.

Both sides have top, top, top lawyers. One set will win and the others will lose, but it's not a case of one side having so much more money that they can hire lawyers from a different stratosphere.

Am I right in thinking that this can of worms was opened as a result of information a hacker secured and that in the UEFA case Man City argued (successfully I think) that the "evidence" was illegally obtained.

If so, then won't Man City's lawyers make the same argument, unless the EPL have different rules of evidence than do UEFA?

Previous ffp cases have involved information disclosed in clubs' accounts. This one hinges on information that should have been in the accounts but wasn't. If proved, then the punishment should much more severe than "merely" breaching financial limits 

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 hour ago, downendcity said:

Am I right in thinking that this can of worms was opened as a result of information a hacker secured and that in the UEFA case Man City argued (successfully I think) that the "evidence" was illegally obtained.

If so, then won't Man City's lawyers make the same argument, unless the EPL have different rules of evidence than do UEFA?

Previous ffp cases have involved information disclosed in clubs' accounts. This one hinges on information that should have been in the accounts but wasn't. If proved, then the punishment should much more severe than "merely" breaching financial limits 

 

Think the CAS accepted it the e-mails despite Man City objections, they deemed it admissible iirc.

Some Charges were not Established (ie unproven) and some were Time Barred. While since I've read the case but UEFA Statute of Limitations meant certain matters could simply not be adjudicated on. This is 5 Years for UEFA. Dunno whether that feeds into Swiss Law.

PL have no such issues albeit notionally under English Law 6 Years but false info or alleged concealment can see that change. From late May 2023.

[STFreeloader]

Everton deducted 10 points. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

If Man City got the nuclear option of getting booted in the event of Guilty of all, they could end up in League Two.

https://archive.is/2024.09.16-050628/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2024/09/15/man-city-rivals-points-deduction-insufficient-if-guilty/

IC has no jurisdiction to forcibly relegate them to the Championship say. They would have to apply for Football League membership.

Maybe forcibly relegated by a 100 point deduction would be that scenario.

[johnbytheriver]

Well! o j simpson got away with it,and man citys lawyers are even better than his were.

[ExiledAjax]

2 hours ago, downendcity said:

Am I right in thinking that this can of worms was opened as a result of information a hacker secured and that in the UEFA case Man City argued (successfully I think) that the "evidence" was illegally obtained.

If so, then won't Man City's lawyers make the same argument, unless the EPL have different rules of evidence than do UEFA?

They will run every argument they think they can. Any evidence that might have sparked it all off could well be obtained legitimately later in the investigation, and thereby deemed admissible. But I don't know.

Honestly. Honestly this is the most complicated, high-stakes case that professional football in the UK has ever seen. It is complex in that each of the 115 charges is technically separate, and even when grouped produce 5 distinct groupings, and there will be overlap between them. It is complex because each season the PL Rules changed slightly, not always in ways that are relevant, but each charge will be dealt with under the rules that were in effect at that time. We've also seen PL Rule enforcement develop significantly since 2009 (i.e. it actually enforces the rules now because of the fear of regulation). We saw in Everton that there is now some sort of precedent* that you do not punish a club twice for an error that impacts multiple seasons, so that will come into play. We saw in Leicester that the vague drafting of the Rules means that whilst it may be easy to charge a club, it is also sometimes possible to find very technical loopholes that get a club out of it. Finally, we should not discount the global political stakes. This is not a prosecution in the courts, this is a private company prosecuting one of its shareholders under its own rules. The controlling entity of the shareholder on trial is a nation state, and one with which the UK has relations. We have seen with the Saudi take over of Newcastle, and one clause of the old Football Governance Bill that these relationships are not exclusive (despite what UEFA/FIFA might protest regarding "governmental interference" when it suits them).

Add to all of that, which I have probably explained poorly, ad to that the fact that there is basically zero sentencing guidelines here so the punishment for any one charge could be almost anything. All manner of punishments can be handed down. The Premier League's scope in that sense is completely open-ended and we are in uncharted territory.

Anyway, we've got 8 weeks of this hearing, then likely at least that long, probably linger, for the Panel to write up its judgment (so probably looking at a decision being published in February 2025), then whatever the outcome it's almost certain to be appealed, and that will be another multi-month process. I can't see any resolution until near the end of this season...but none of the charges relate to this season anyway so it probably won't impact the title battle this year unless Pep throws his toys out of the pram.

*there isn't actually anything to formally say that one PL panel must follow a precedent set by another, but they generally do look at each other's work as guidance.

[Loco Rojo]

PL will want to protect its biggest team asset/poster boy of the league. I'm expecting the punishment to be small one - just enough that the PL can pretent to be in control (possibly a suspended one in case wrong doing happens again). 

Lots of other teams screaming and shouting about the unfairness of the outcome.

What im not expecting is any sort of serious punishment as would likely be seen if it was Everton, Ipswich etc etc in the same position.

[The Coach]

2 minutes ago, Loco Rojo said:

PL will want to protect its biggest team asset/poster boy of the league. I'm expecting the punishment to be small one - just enough that the PL can pretent to be in control (possibly a suspended one in case wrong doing happens again). 

Lots of other teams screaming and shouting about the unfairness of the outcome.

What im not expecting is any sort of serious punishment as would likely be seen if it was Everton, Ipswich etc etc in the same position.

I think it will end up with a multi million pound fine and a few years ban from UCL.

I’d love to see the outcome @Mr Popodopolous has mentioned about however.

[Kid in the Riot]

10 minutes ago, Loco Rojo said:

PL will want to protect its biggest team asset/poster boy of the league. I'm expecting the punishment to be small one - just enough that the PL can pretent to be in control (possibly a suspended one in case wrong doing happens again). 

Lots of other teams screaming and shouting about the unfairness of the outcome.

What im not expecting is any sort of serious punishment as would likely be seen if it was Everton, Ipswich etc etc in the same position.

I don't think the PL will want to protect them, and the punishment could be very, very severe. If they are guilty of multiple charges then a modest points deduction and fine isn't going to cut the mustard.

If they are found guilty and it has cost other clubs trophies and Champions League positions then any fine should run into hundreds of millions of pounds. 

My main concern is political interference. The government will intervene as they don't want to upset a key ally in the middle east, and put pressure on the PL to minimise any punishment. 

The only similar example I can think of is Saracens in the rugby Premiership who were fined and effectively relegated via a huge points deduction.

But even after those punishments they were able to compete again for honours after one season in the C'ship. 

[Loco Rojo]

3 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

I don't think the PL will want to protect them, and the punishment could be very, very severe. If they are guilty of multiple charges then a modest points deduction and fine isn't going to cut the mustard.

If they are found guilty and it has cost other clubs trophies and Champions League positions then any fine should run into hundreds of millions of pounds. 

My main concern is political interference. The government will intervene as they don't want to upset a key ally in the middle east, and put pressure on the PL to minimise any punishment. 

The only similar example I can think of is Saracens in the rugby Premiership who were fined and effectively relegated via a huge points deduction.

But even after those punishments they were able to compete again for honours after one season in the C'ship. 

And that's why in my mind i dont see a 'correct' punishement ever being given out. I think it'll be the bare minimum/just enough for the PL to be able to look like they are in control.  I think Man City/owners have far too many connections outside of the sport which will make it too difficult to give the appropriate outcome. 

Maybe it's just me and i don't have faith in them/their ability to do the right thing.

[Mr Popodopolous]

21 minutes ago, The Coach said:

I think it will end up with a multi million pound fine and a few years ban from UCL.

I’d love to see the outcome @Mr Popodopolous has mentioned about however.

It's hard to say isn't it, it was first mooted back in February 2023.

It'd be a Real Life Football Manager..Man City busted down to League Two or below.

Wonder who would stay..

[ExiledAjax]

2 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

I don't think the PL will want to protect them, and the punishment could be very, very severe. If they are guilty of multiple charges then a modest points deduction and fine isn't going to cut the mustard.

I take this line as well. I actually think this is the PL's final gamble in showing that they can effectively regulate football themselves. The new iteration of the Football Governance Bill is likely going to be published during this hearing. The PL need a big hefty win to give them an argument in front of Parliament that the regulator can be watered down. That is the long game for the PL Limited. They took a knock with Leicester after finding some success in Everton and Forest. They need the win and this gives them a huge opportunity. The PL will go all out to try and get something, albeit their arguments may have half an eye on the political aspect.

I'd also take this opportunity to remind everyone that the PL panel that is deciding this is independent of the PL itself. Appointed in accordance with its rules yes, but in making its decisions it acts alone. I can feel eyes rolling as people read that but I personally know people who have been on these panels (sadly not this one) and I do not doubt their integrity at all. Furthermore, the very fact that the Everton and Forest panels disagreed with each other regarding some aspects of the application of the PL Rules should give us confidence in the integrity of the system.

The PL is the complainant in this case, not the judge and jury.

[Cityboy1954]

5 hours ago, downendcity said:

What do we think the outcome will be?

Guilty of all/most charges and suffering relegation- or worse!

As above but with some sort of fudge judgement  - big fine and relatively minimal points deduction.

Guilty of some charges with a slap on the wrist punishment.

Not guilty and every other prem team given a points deduction.

Bailey Wright gets a 12 match ban whatever the outcome!

Only way to stop that machine .

[ExiledAjax]

5 hours ago, downendcity said:

What do we think the outcome will be?

Guilty of all/most charges and suffering relegation- or worse!

As above but with some sort of fudge judgement  - big fine and relatively minimal points deduction.

Guilty of some charges with a slap on the wrist punishment.

Not guilty and every other prem team given a points deduction.

Bailey Wright gets a 12 match ban whatever the outcome!

Sorry I actually didn't answer this.

With the caveats of my posts above I think we will see:

Guilty of the non-cooperation charges. At least partially guilty of some, but not all of the other charges. Off on a technicality on others. Possibly we might see a call of 'well you're guilty of the fault but we can't establish that it gave you a competitive advantage' so it's a fine but no points or titles off. 

In terms of punishment. Hell I think they might go for a title-strip in some seasons if available, whether they do that through a retrospective points deduction I'm not sure. 

Points deduction in this season...I can't see the standing to do that given the charges are all quite historic now.

Have I sat on the fence hard enough?

[Kid in the Riot]

12 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Sorry I actually didn't answer this.

With the caveats of my posts above I think we will see:

Guilty of the non-cooperation charges. At least partially guilty of some, but not all of the other charges. Off on a technicality on others. Possibly we might see a call of 'well you're guilty of the fault but we can't establish that it gave you a competitive advantage' so it's a fine but no points or titles off. 

In terms of punishment. Hell I think they might go for a title-strip in some seasons if available, whether they do that through a retrospective points deduction I'm not sure. 

Points deduction in this season...I can't see the standing to do that given the charges are all quite historic now.

Have I sat on the fence hard enough?

I think if it is proven they had an unfair advantage for several seasons as they were cooking the books, then the punishment needs to be severe enough to make it very difficult for them to win anything for a similar period of time. In theory, a massive fine could achieve that. 

[downendcity]

24 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Sorry I actually didn't answer this.

With the caveats of my posts above I think we will see:

Guilty of the non-cooperation charges. At least partially guilty of some, but not all of the other charges. Off on a technicality on others. Possibly we might see a call of 'well you're guilty of the fault but we can't establish that it gave you a competitive advantage' so it's a fine but no points or titles off. 

In terms of punishment. Hell I think they might go for a title-strip in some seasons if available, whether they do that through a retrospective points deduction I'm not sure. 

Points deduction in this season...I can't see the standing to do that given the charges are all quite historic now.

Have I sat on the fence hard enough?

Re the historic nature of the charges. I think a majority of fans ( non City, obviously) feel that if proven,  what they did back then provided the groundwork for them to go on to their success.

If so then in my view they should be punished the same as if the offences occured a couple of seasons ago.

One of the charges is that a chunk of Pep's salary was being paid through another of the owners companies. If so, then it could be argued that without such an under the table arrangement Pep might not have taken the job and City would not have achieved the success they have under him.

[Red Cloud]

Huw Edwards just got off pretty much scott-free using one of the most expensive Lawyers out there, recently an old lady got 15 months for Tweeting - there is nothing that money can't buy in this country

[ExiledAjax]

14 minutes ago, downendcity said:

Re the historic nature of the charges. I think a majority of fans ( non City, obviously) feel that if proven,  what they did back then provided the groundwork for them to go on to their success.

If so then in my view they should be punished the same as if the offences occured a couple of seasons ago.

One of the charges is that a chunk of Pep's salary was being paid through another of the owners companies. If so, then it could be argued that without such an under the table arrangement Pep might not have taken the job and City would not have achieved the success they have under him.

Sure, and I would say that in the recent PSR cases it has been established that "financial fuckery" can and often does lead to a competitive advantage, so I suspect they would find one.

One thing I am pretty certain of is that over 6 years of information gathering and preparation, 8 weeks of a hearing, and some 8 weeks more of panel deliberation, 99% of issues will be considered in considerable detail. The salary issues do recall Saracens rugby as well. Again, no binding precedent there, but I'd be certain that the PL's lawyers will reference it.

[Mr Popodopolous]

There are multiple Tests here IMO..and it can vary by timeframe. It isn't a conventional FFP oh we overspent but the whole concealment allegations, disguised equity etc etc.

Firstly...

*If proven, does the gap between Fair Value as per the PL hired Values and the Man City deal for all relevant Transactions put them over £105m in any given Period(s)..say up to the end of 2017-18. If so there are some established Principles ie 3 Points for an overspend and 1 Point per £6.5m over has been mentioned prior to any Mitigation or Aggravation.

If e.g. there was a gap between Fair and Compliance over 3 Years of £70m and the Fair Value was only £63m..well it would be overstated but still within.

To do that equation you have to add the Net Profit over 3 Years to the Allowables to the £105m.

I cannot remember if it is the 3 Year Period ending in 2013-14 or the 3 Year Period starting with 2013-14 that is the relevant one here. Anyway no small exercise.

These really don't seem like the most serious issues though. If e.g. there were 3 breaches of £13m apiece what's that a 15 point deduction?

Clearly if they have failed PL FFP for any period then they have also failed UEFA FFP but UEFA have an Internal Statute of Limitations...UEFA FFP was €30m in 3 years plus Allowables whereas PL was £105m plus Allowables in 3 Years so Idk how UEFA could deal with that in the light of the Statute of Limitations..plus the 2014 Settlement Agreement and the 2020 Ban and CAS Hearing.

On the other hand UEFA have some kinda reset following a breach, PL don't. Would then depend on individual years really.

[Mr Popodopolous]

By way of example...

Going solely on Audited Accounts. The first 3 Year Period seems to be 2013-14 to 2015-16.

Man City- Profit Before Tax Pre Year and 3 Years

2013-14 -£22.929m

2014-15 +£10.160m

2015-16 +£19.589m

3 Year Pre Tax Pre add-back Profit

£6.82m

Need to find £111.82m in 3 Years of illegitimate revenue plus Hidden Costs before the legitimate add-backs to get them to fail to 2015-16 

UEFA settlement of £16.25m fwiw too in the 2013-14 season, dunno whether that is excluded or not.

Edited Monday at 15:46 by Mr Popodopolous

[Red Billy]

Relegation to League Two please. Not sure what the charges are or if the punishment fits the crime but would love it for the sh@ts and giggles!

[Red Billy]

Just now, Red Billy said:

Relegation to League Two please. Not sure what the charges are or if the punishment fits the crime but would love it for the sh@ts and giggles!

And as a wild card - pick a random league 2 club and promote them to the premier league and give them Man City’s champions league spot. That would make football interesting again!

[Mr Popodopolous]

Couple of good articles.

https://archive.is/2024.09.16-210036/https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5762324/2024/09/16/manchester-city-charges-explained/

https://archive.is/2024.09.16-165121/https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5770700/2024/09/16/manchester-city-punishment-115-premier-league/

[Lrrr]

7 hours ago, Kid in the Riot said:

I think if it is proven they had an unfair advantage for several seasons as they were cooking the books, then the punishment needs to be severe enough to make it very difficult for them to win anything for a similar period of time. In theory, a massive fine could achieve that. 

Saw a suggestion of a possible punishment from a paper that could be points deductions for 4/5 seasons, not enough to relegate them but enough that could make it difficult to qualify for Europe, with a consequential punishment of 'how many players are happy to play for them for 4/5 years without the potential of european football?' 

[Mr Popodopolous]

22 minutes ago, Lrrr said:

Saw a suggestion of a possible punishment from a paper that could be points deductions for 4/5 seasons, not enough to relegate them but enough that could make it difficult to qualify for Europe, with a consequential punishment of 'how many players are happy to play for them for 4/5 years without the potential of european football?' 

Win a Cup, into the Europa League?

Win the Europa League, back in the CL.

[Hxj]

As I have said elsewhere there is plenty of publicly available information detailing the issues, the evasions (carefully chosen) and the total contempt towards the EPL rules.

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 minutes ago, Hxj said:

As I have said elsewhere there is plenty of publicly available information detailing the issues, the evasions (carefully chosen) and the total contempt towards the EPL rules.

 

This Statute of Limitations within UEFA Regs stymied them a bit, less of an issue here?

Edited Monday at 22:32 by Mr Popodopolous

[ExiledAjax]

13 hours ago, Red Billy said:

And as a wild card - pick a random league 2 club and promote them to the premier league and give them Man City’s champions league spot. That would make football interesting again!

Can we get relegated quickly enough? 

[downendcity]

[Midred]

One for each of the first team players?