Manchester City and their 115 rule breaches

The verdict is imminent, expected any time.

Either party can then Appeal the decision, could drag on forever, but you would assume they are aiming for conclusion by seasons end.

For what it's worth Borson/ Kevin Maguire predict Man City to be fined, with the major (fraud) points not proven but fined for non assistance etc.

This is based on a strange article in the Echo which gives far too much oxygen to the ramblings of that Borson bloke.

Maybe it suggests a verdict by the tribunal is soon to be forthcoming… after god knows how many years of obfuscation and denial.

Not holding my breath…

The verdict is due in March as I understand it.

Don't you just hate International breaks? That said; I'm not going to read all that no doubt erudite guff above as I don't know my rule E.53 to 60 arse, from my rule W15 & 16 elbow.

However, I get the impression that because City have already twice(?) driven a legal horse and cart through the Premier League's rules, that they're poorly written and a bit open to interpretation... but fine as long as the Premier League are the ones doing the interpreting.

So that's the letter of the law covered, now to the elephant in the room.

Most would suspect though, that with regards to the spirit of the law, City are as guilty as fuck – but will get off with a token* – for them – slap on the wrist.

[* If 1 offence for what was it? £9M over was net minus 6 points, what price 115?]

Thus, once it's all sorted – to City's satisfaction no doubt! – this will then allow the Premier League to get on with their core business of smoothing the path for Burnley to put their Lancashire-style legal clogs on and kick us in the nuts.

A plague on all their houses!

It's good to know that these Commissions are independent of the people who appoint them, I mean, who could possibly think otherwise especially after this length of time?

Still, best to put something out to sound public opinion before publicly announcing the verdict of a hearing held behind closed doors.

If you accept the claim that this case is extremely complex, and that Manchester City have denied all the charges and no doubt thrown up a thousand roadblocks and barriers to the Premier League investigation at every turn in an attempt to stall it completely, then that might reasonably explain the delay in bringing them to justice?

Think just of the massive volume of paperwork involved to cover this huge number of charges. Everton's single measly breach of PSR apparently involved 40,000 pages of documents that needed review.

I know the smart response is to diss the Premier League and everything they try to do but, having been involved in complex litigation, it requires a level of diligence and especially in this case a question of following the rules — as it's all about the rules.

It's in the vital interest of every single club that the rules are not only applied correctly but that they are seen to be so by every club in the Premier League.

It goes back to that simple little meme — that the Premier League is 'corrupt'. How many of those fans who held up that card could describe just how the Premier League had been corrupt? And why didn't the clubs rebel in some way if they had been corrupt?

If Manchester City were fined £100bn then, providing it did not hit their PSR, it will have no effect on the club as the UAE would just go to the petty cash box to find the money.

This will be the test of the corrupt EPL. If Everton's breach required a points deduction and all City get is a financial penalty which will not hurt them in any way - then that is the corrupt part.

Michael (here I am again, can't sleep at 3am) one has to consider:
1. City knew exactly what they were doing and chose to ignore completely the ones they didn't like.
2. One would have to assume the PL advised the club on numerous occasions what information was required but was ignored.
3. City would no doubt have been warned to comply or else and chose not to give the information in the required manner. City no doubt gave the PL some version of the required accounts, but omitted information that was damaging or rule breaking.
4. For the detailed charges the club must have known its financial reporting was in breach for many, many years, or at least incomplete but stuck two fingers up and attempted to bluff their way through?
5. When it comes to the charges of good faith, which I might add Everton were accused of and condemned for a single breach, City do not have a leg to stand on.
6. If this has continue for the greater part of two decades, why has nothing been done at least for specific breaches on specific dates rather that rolling it all into one commission! In context to the charges and condemnation, the destruction worldwide of the clubs reputation, why has City not been charged beforehand?
City over this period have been the drawcard worldwide for the PL, to lay charges would damage both theirs and by default, the PL in a massive way. To ignore them for so long gave credence to the views of one rule for one, one rule for another. Hence the justifiable question of corruption.
Justice must be done, but also seen to be done, Man City in my view deserve to be kicked out of the PL and not allowed back in until they comply with the rules everyone else has to in the same manner.
Should it not also address the elephant in the room of Sporting Advantage? Will clubs en masse be lining up to request compensation? Or titles be stripped! Don't hold your breath... of course the hypocrisy will continue if at the same time Burnley are successful in suing for our perceived sporting advantage.

Lastly, it is inconceivable that this matter could result in a mere fine

Let's face it money talks and those who have it can break all the rules and get away with it.

City will drag this on until the next century and by that time will only get a slap on the wrist.

I'm pretty sure I read one of the charges relates to a manager paid off the books (Mancini?) which City tried to hide when questioned about it. As Christine has said why weren't these matters dealt with before and allowed to build up until they found an easy target in Everton.

Thats where the allegation of corruption come from. One rule for the media favourites and a different rule for the rest.

Jay, I believe it was Mancini and playing staff too.

Michael(#7); Isn't it the other side of that coin that says justice delayed is justice denied.

Tom #9 - "Let's face it money talks and those who have it can break all the rules and get away with it."

True.

But a couple of thoughts.

Re Everton, there now seems to be a vibe (?) that suggests in future, TFG's Everton might be a lot less jellyfish-like than the old regime.

We were docked 8 points for 2 charges, so I hope Mark Howard KC is watching Man City and the Premier League verrrrry closely.

Also, I imagine legal teams at (SPIT!) Liverpool and possibly Arsenal must be keeping their legal powder dry waiting for the outcome of charges against City.

They might not have City's money but I doubt they'll be put off a legal battle if they believe there's a good chance of taking tens of millions from City in lost revenue (they'll possibly be watching Burnley's claims against Everton, although that really does seem to be a fuck-up by the Premier League).

By the way I noticed earlier that on Bet365, Wolves are 14/1 for relegation.

Same as City then.

Michael,

In answer to your question, how are the Premier League corrupt, well maybe allowing Chelsea who reported Abramovich fiddled the books yet no punishment.

They also allowed Chelsea to sell their 2 hotels to themselves to avoid contravening PSR, would you not consider this as a corrupt practice?

Was Kanchelskis really world class? His first few years at Man Utd he was barely in the team then he had a decent season. He was a standout at Everton for about a year then crap at Fiorentina and mediocre in a mediocre Rangers team by age 29.

What does world class even mean? There are various players who take the EPL by storm for a year or so and earn that moniker but the before and after is sharply different. e.g. Sasa Curcic, Kinkladze, Yeboah. Is it maybe that a player just hits a rich vein of form, defenders haven't wised up to him yet based on his prior mediocrity and he also has a bit of luck thrown in? Then of course the excuses get rolled out, Polish Bob just wanted a permanent contract then stopped trying, Kinkladze ate too much, Andrei was harrassed by the mafia, Yeboah suddenly realized he was 50 years old.

Surely world class means maintaining the highest standards for a long period of time rather than being a flash in the pan. Also, what does world class mean on a technical level? Dribbling around defenders and taking a shot? There are other aspects of the game. You could say based on making tackles and scoring headers from corners Dave Watson was world class for 15 years.

Money talks indeed. I'm half way through a book entitled;
'The ugly game' (The Quatari plot to buy the World Cup).
The amounts of back handers and bribes involved were eye watering.

Kieran, to consistently perform to an exceptional standard at the highest level of the game against other top class teams, would be my go at it.

Perhaps where we came unstuck, and where Man City had benefitted for so long, was in the very lax application of the rules.

But isn't the other factor, that th eextent of City';s crimes only came to light after the Football Leaks business and Der Spiegel doing some digging?

Is it worth listening to Clive Myrie's Football On Trial: The Manchester City Charges?

Christine @ 8 & Jay @10; " As Christine has said why weren't these matters dealt with before and allowed to build up until they found an easy target in Everton"

Why? maybe because the Premier League had tried once(?) before and City threw 50 Million quids worth of lawyers at them and tied them up in knots.

So off it went into the 'Too Hard Basket" until that is, the then Govt of the day started making noises about oversight and regulation.

So something had to be seen to be done.

I'm sure I'm not alone but I'm convinced we were only picked on...not that due to Moshiri & Kenwright (deceased) collective follies we weren't a viable target...'pour encourager les autres'

Big enough to make an example of but not big enough to really upset the Premier League apple cart.

Nobody really knows (officially) yet what will happen to city...except maybe the players who don't seem to have their heart in challenging for the title for some reason - I wonder why???

But it's a pound to a pinch of poo that they won't be punished in a pro-rata manner like we were...1 offence = 6 or 4 pts (net) and its also nailed on that it will be very unlikely that the punish will fit their ever so numerous crimes.

Where as Burnley are putting their best legal kicking clogs on as we speak.

Brian @15,

I think the difficulty with both those things is they do seem on the face of it to be unfair and biased toward a big monied club.

However, I don't have any knowledge of the details and can't really make a judgement other than a visceral gut reaction.

Maybe that points up a bigger problem the Premier League has in communicating judgements such as these… but I know certainly in Everton's case they published detailed reports on how things were arrived at — reports that I suggest very few fans actually read, based on their false convictions about what went down.

Back to Chelsea though, and I would say, if these were a case of corruption by the Premier League, wouldn't all the other clubs make a complaint? Wouldn't there be a huge uproar about it?

Or have they been made aware of the rules and reasoning behind it and see it as being acceptable?

I suppose there's a third possibility that should be good for conspiracy theorists: that the 14 smaller clubs in the Premier League are so intimidated by the Big 6 that they won't (or are too stupid to) gang together to mount an offensive against such apparently blatant corruption???

Michael,

You may well be right that the fact that none of the other Premier League clubs complained might well suggest that, when presented with the facts, they agreed for the Premier League not to take action.

But for me, the selling of the hotels to themselves really doesn't pass the smell test. Seems quite ironic that Chelsea can sell the hotel to themselves yet the Premier League fought and eventually lost the case against Man City not being able to accept money from subsidiary companies associated with City's owners.

There's always someone who can't help but drag Trump/Musk into the conversation. Well done Tom #9. I hope you get some help for your TDS.

As for the completely unrelated subject of the 115 charges. I've always felt that were they found guilty, a relegation down to League Two would be appropriate and then they'd be back up to the Premier League in three years. A stripping of their Premier League trophies would be appropriate as well.

However, I am feeling like they'll just get a slap on the wrist, a fine, and then the rest is swept under the rug.

Brian #22,

I don't think the Premier League's approach to Manchester City and to Chelsea was markedly different. City weren't prevented from entering into commercial arrangements with companies associated with City's owners. Any such arrangements were however to be subject to a "fair value" test.

The sale of the Chelsea hotels was also subject to a "fair value" test.

One huge telling factor in the corrupt allegations of unfair treatment : the 'Breakaway 6' were going to destroy the Premier League and go off asunder — small fine, no points deductions.

Everton – despite a new stadium that would actually promote the Premier League brand and revitalise a large part of a relatively impoverished city etc… well, we all know the story there.

The consensus among Man City fans seems to be that they will be exonerated when it comes to all but the least substantial charges, and that the worst that can expect is a fine. This seems to have come from club insiders.

It's hard to swallow, given the heavy-handed punishment we received for what amounted to an accountancy trick and didn't result in a sporting advantage.

I still think Forest got off lightly. They flagrantly broke the rules to gain a sporting advantage, one they are reaping the rewards of now. Yet somehow, their punishment was half of that handed out to us.

A shambles. But what can we do?

It does appear very unequal, Danny. That first 10-point deduction decision. That nonsense with Forest getting a point back for good behaviour... when theirs was all about player trading.

Man City, best lawyers, fraudulent accusations against UAE unlikely to stick, will get off lightly. Whole thing was and is unfair. Everton were a Premier League regulator scapegoat.

We didn't seem to protest enough, maybe we knew we weren't in a position to.

Former Everton CEO Kieth Wyness has been telling Football Insider what he's heard:

"All the rumours – and there's both sides of the rumour mill are going strongly – that Man City are gonna escape, that there's a settlement being done behind the scenes, to the Premier League may well win," he told Football Insider.

"So right now you just pick your rumour and see where it goes. My own gut feeling and the sources that I've been trusting so far would tend towards City doing quite well in this case.

"But I don't think both parties will come out of it unscathed. Let's just wait and see."

Or, more simply put, even he has no idea!

Your last sentence Michael. What a catch all, says nothing statement from Wyness. It says nothing and although he cites trusted sources, I doubt if he knows anything.

Danny (30) I’m sure Wyness knows nothing about how City will fare over these charges but I’d love him to write a book about his time working with Kenwright at Everton then we’d get to know plenty!

Mind you he did sign a non confidential contract when he took his pay off money and walked away laughing with his cheque to the relief of quite a few involved with Everton at the time!

You can see why it's so complex.

They've got 3 PSR Charges. One that goes from Rule E.52 (losses exceeding 15M) and two that go from E.53 (losses exceeding 105M).

But in all three of those they've been charged for all rules up to and including E.60... which takes in the old rules around Associated Party Transactions.

So, presumably, they fail PSR if their deals are assessed as not being fair value. The kicker here is that they've already claimed a victory there with a tribunal deciding the APT rules were void and unenforceable in their previous form.

They're going to get off aren't they? It's hard to believe they'd pump money into the club from related companies and still fail PSR.

The rest of the charges might just be administrative. They don't report to the league what they're required to do, or in the way they should.

Not that I necessarily want to go down the same old route again but there really is some uninformed opinion on here about the charges against Everton.

It wasn't an accounting trick, it was losses on losses on losses. It came about because we spent too much and earned too little. And of course the arse fell out of our own dubious source of funding. The club tried to hide it and came up with some very generous interpretations, followed by some fairly pathetic mitigations.

The PSR rules stopped Moshiri taking risks with the club. And their ineptitude delayed the deduction so that we stayed in the Premier League. We dodged a bullet in my opinion.

The difference between us and City? Fundamentally, they've still got their rich benefactor. Ours got sanctioned after the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

I find it hard to believe that City were not breaching the rules because it was several years before they started getting into the Champions League and winning trophies. I live in the South and the explosion of Man city fans down here has only happened since Pep went in thus meaning they weren't achieving widespread revenue streams until relatively recently and after paying out phenomenal sums for players like Mahrez, Stones and De Bruyne.

It's bizarre that the FA haven't come down on Chelsea, our neighbours and United. Or Spurs come to that matter.

As for the above debate about Kanchelskis, I thought he was brilliant against Blackburn and in the Derby. I wouldn't say he was world class but, on his day, he was brilliant.