The biggest cheats in world football (Man Cheaty?)

Discussion in 'Liverpool' started by speker, Feb 6, 2023.

  1. zaqualung

    zaqualung Member+

    Jun 17, 2015
    San Francisco
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    I don;t get the point?

    How are they going to use any untoward (to the other 18 clubs) outcome to forestall the November case without suing some parties on the basis of the hearing's outcome?
     
  2. SamScouse

    SamScouse Member+

    Jun 1, 2015
    Toronto
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    its' the PL - there is no logic to it. if it hadn't been leaked we wouldn't know it was happening at all.
     
  3. zaqualung

    zaqualung Member+

    Jun 17, 2015
    San Francisco
    Club:
    Liverpool FC

    Football - done the Kafka way .... ;)
     
  4. SamScouse

    SamScouse Member+

    Jun 1, 2015
    Toronto
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    warning - reading this may produce tears.

    of laughter.
    https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...mier-league-analysis-commercial-income-unfair
    Manchester City are claiming the Premier League has treated them unfairly in assessing their commercial income by relying on the analysis of a data company that also works for their rivals. The Guardian has learned the league’s scrutiny of the fair market value of City’s deals was undertaken by Nielsen Sports, a global data and media valuation firm that has contracts with several top-flight clubs.

    City are understood to have raised the Premier League’s use of Nielsen in their legal battle over associated party transactions (APT), in which clubs strike sponsorship or revenue deals with businesses linked to their owners, which was heard in private last month. A decision on the landmark case is expected soon, although it is unclear when it will be made public.


    (..... next, they plan to hold their breath and stamp their feet until this all stops.)

    The Premier League appointed Nielsen to help police its APT rules when the regulations were introduced in 2021 in a move approved by the clubs. It is understood the Nielsen team working for the league on APT rules is ringfenced from the rest of its business, an operation with eight offices around the world.

    The club and the Premier League are also preparing to lock horns in an era-defining legal hearing in November, with the winners of six of the past seven league titles accused of 115 breaches of financial fair play rules.
     
    LiverpoolFanatic repped this.
  5. SamScouse

    SamScouse Member+

    Jun 1, 2015
    Toronto
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    take THAT, Man City!!! that'll teach you not to ..... oh hang on.

    how much????????


    Manchester City have been fined £2.09m for repeatedly coming out late for both the start of matches and after half-time. The club accepted they had breached Premier League rules 22 times "without good reason, external".

    The Premier League said the club had "apologised for the accepted breaches and confirmed that it has reminded the players and football management teams of their responsibilities".
     
  6. newterp

    newterp Moderator
    Staff Member

    Jun 6, 2007
    North Potomac, MD
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    fortunately this is not the 115 charges thing - I was livid for 30 seconds when I first saw this earlier....
     
  7. SamScouse

    SamScouse Member+

    Jun 1, 2015
    Toronto
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    fining them 2m quid is like farting in their general direction, from 10,000 miles away.
     
    soccershaggy and ewibe repped this.
  8. zaqualung

    zaqualung Member+

    Jun 17, 2015
    San Francisco
    Club:
    Liverpool FC

    calm... breathe...
    I think if it was the result of the big one, you'd have heard of it before a post like this landed on our little board!
     
  9. Samarkand

    Samarkand Member+

    May 28, 2001
    115 hearings begin on September 16 and is expected to last two months with a final verdict being reached – including any potential appeals – by the end of the upcoming season.
     
    speker repped this.
  10. SamScouse

    SamScouse Member+

    Jun 1, 2015
    Toronto
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    yawn.
    expectations of them being punished in any meaningful way are lower than a snake's belly.
     
    B.A. repped this.
  11. newterp

    newterp Moderator
    Staff Member

    Jun 6, 2007
    North Potomac, MD
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Yep. Especially with their countersuit against the PL. the PL is already running scared.
     
  12. SamScouse

    SamScouse Member+

    Jun 1, 2015
    Toronto
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    a good summary / reminder of the PL investigation. as the commisssion begins its work.

    https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...ow-about-manchester-citys-hearing-and-charges

    What are Manchester City accused of?
    The Premier League has charged the champions with more than 100 breaches of competition rules between the seasons 2009-10 and 2022-23. The charges cover four areas: a failure to give “a true and fair view of the club’s financial position”; a failure to “include full details” of player and manager remuneration; breaches of national and continental financial fair play regulations; and a failure to “cooperate with, and assist, the Premier League in its investigations”. The counts will be heard by a three-person independent commission, starting on Monday, in what is thought to be a London location.

    Do we have specifics?
    The Premier League has published only an extended charge sheet, with no details. The timeframes, however, suggest the charges line up with claims already in the public domain. First, that City inflated the value of sponsorship deals as a means of channelling more money from their owners into the club. Second, that secret payments were made to the manager Roberto Mancini and to the then agent of Yaya Touré. Third, that these acts left the club contravening financial rules. Fourth, that when the Premier League sought to investigate the claims, City obstructed it. City have always denied any wrongdoing.

    Why do the charges matter?
    Because of their seismic nature and implications, whatever the verdict. Because they are unprecedented in the domestic game. And because of City’s dominance. In the 14 seasons covered by the charges, City won seven Premier Leagues, six League Cups, three FA Cups and the Champions League. Since then they have won another Premier League, the Uefa Super Cup and the Fifa Club World Cup. They have played in the Champions League every season from 2011-12. This has driven the global pre-eminence of the Premier League and ever-increasing transfer fees (City’s squad is worth £1bn-plus). There are arguments, too, that it has affected competitive balance here and across Europe, led to the near-development of a breakaway Super League (which City were a part of) and quickened the need for independent regulation of English football. In February 2023 when the charges were brought La Liga’s president, Javier Tebas, called the English top flight a “doped market”. On Friday, he told Mundo Deportivo: “I have spoken with many Premier League clubs and most of them understand that City should be sanctioned.” If City are judged to have found success while breaking the rules, the game will come under greater scrutiny.

    What happens next?

    Under Premier League instruction, Murray Rosen KC has selected three people to form the independent commission that will hear the charges, with one member of this panel required to be a financial expert. The hearings will be conducted privately and though there is no formal timeframe, legal experts believe it will take a minimum of two months. When the commission publishes its verdict, either side can go to an appeals panel and, after this, arbitration. If all fails, either could attempt to find an argument to take to the high court. Under the rules of association of the Premier League there is no opportunity for either party to go to the court of arbitration for sport in Switzerland.

    If guilty, what could the punishment be?
    According to rule W.51 in the Premier League handbook, a commission has the ability to levy a wide range of sanctions against any club found to have broken the rules. These include fines, the docking of points and suspension, or even expulsion, from the competition. In fact, sub-clause W.51.7 states that the commission can “impose upon the respondent any combination of the foregoing or such other penalty as it shall think fit”. That even leaves open the possibility of City being stripped of their titles.

    What do City say?
    The champions are bullish. On the record the club says it “welcomes the review” and the opportunity to “impartially consider the comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence that exists in support of its position”. Club sources also say City were not informed of the charges before they were published online. Finally, they argue that the club has been under investigation for breaching financial rules before, and were cleared.

    Haven’t we been here before with Uefa?
    In 2020 Uefa suspended City from the Champions League for two years for “overstating its sponsorship revenue in its accounts” between 2012 and 2016, part of the same period covered by the Premier League’s charges. However, that sanction was overturned on appeal by Cas. In its ruling Cas found that a number of the claims brought by Uefa had fallen outside a five-year “time bar” which prevented historical charges. But the tribunal also argued that one key charge over payments relating to sponsorship by Etihad Airlines was “not established”. The panel said Uefa had submitted insufficient evidence and that, if its case had been correct, then City employees who had given testimony to Cas would have had to have been lying.

    Is this the result of ‘Football Leaks’?
    Uefa found City in breach of its financial fair play regulations in 2014 but reached a settlement under which City paid a €20m fine and submitted reduced squads to the Champions League. The revisiting of alleged irregularities came after the document hack known as “Football Leaks” in 2015 exposed what appear to be official documents and email communication from inside City, alongside a number of other football organisations. These documents are understood to also have prompted the Premier League’s investigation, a four-year process which has brought these charges. City have previously described Football Leaks as an “orchestrated campaign” and part of “an endless attempt to damage us”.
     
    LiverpoolFanatic repped this.
  13. SamScouse

    SamScouse Member+

    Jun 1, 2015
    Toronto
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/man-city-charges-what-are-latest-ffp-b2613420.html
    The two main questions at the heart of Man City’s 115 charges

    Amid all of the uncertainty around the Manchester City hearing, there is one view that can be stated with confidence as it finally gets under way. That is that the case will continue as it started, with minimal information coming into the public domain. There are only a handful of people on the planet who actually know how it has gone so far, and that will remain the case given that the three-person independent commission will hear the charges in private. Questions can already be asked about what this says about transparency in football regulation. City insist upon their innocence.

    There is nevertheless one detail that more informed executives are repeatedly raising around the case, that could prove absolutely integral to its outcome. That is the name “Jaber Mohamed”, which first came to light in last year’s YouTube documentary ‘Britain’s Biggest Football Scandal?’ In the initial Uefa disciplinary hearing from an investigation into the Football Leaks emails, City’s own lawyer stated that "Jaber Mohamed" was “a person in the business of providing financial and brokering services to commercial entities” in the United Arab Emirates. On the club’s own admission, Abu Dhabi United Group [ADUG] - the name of the company that Sheikh Mansour had used to buy the club - “caused” for £30m to be paid by Mohamed on behalf of main sponsor Etisalat over 2012 and 2013. The telecom company didn’t actually pay for anything until 2015.


    There are a number of obvious questions from this that the club is likely to have to satisfactorily answer over the next few weeks, especially given this is ultimately about whether financial information was accurately disclosed. One, as Uefa’s own report stated, is “why either Etisalat or ADUG should have needed any financial assistance from a broker in paying the Etisalat sponsorship liabilities”. It could be argued that this question is all the more pronounced since both Etisalat and ADUG feasibly have access to the same UAE state reserves of trillions of pounds through UAE’s state links. This, as Uefa’s report stated, was “not answered at any point in the club’s submission and evidence”.


    [​IMG]
    Man City have won the Premier League twice since being referred to an independent commission (Getty Images)
    Another question is how a club would allow a company to reap the benefits of a high-profile sponsorship despite not paying them for three years. Why would anyone other than Etisalat be paying most of their obligations? City argued that the telecoms company repaid the money to their owners in 2015, but this was rejected by Uefa’s Adjudicatory Chamber, who concluded this was “disguised equity funding”.

    It was also the core of the judgement that saw the club initially banned from the Champions League for two years, especially since it allowed the chamber to infer a pattern of behaviour in another example involving Etihad. There, the emails reported by Der Spiegel were alleged to show the airline was paying only £8m of sponsorships worth £35m, £65m and £67.5m from 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2015-16.

    Recommended

    Uefa only had the Football Leaks emails in the case of Etihad, not accounting information. The evidence was still found credible because the airline had made two separate payments for the 2015-16 sponsorship that tallied with the amounts set out in the relevant email. Since City refused to hand over further emails or allow relevant individuals to give evidence, this represented a failure to co-operate, so the chamber was entitled in Swiss law to infer the same patterns of behaviour as with Etisalat.

    The Court of Arbitration for Sport didn’t have to deal with anything related to Jaber Mohamed, however, because the judges ruled by a vote of two to one that the Etisalat evidence was time-barred. Although the accounts for the telecoms company example had been submitted inside the May 2014-May 2019 time limit, the payments had been made earlier. Two of the judges ruled that it was the timing of the payments that mattered. This meant that the Etisalat evidence couldn’t be used to draw inference for the Etihad case, either, which was how CAS ruled that the claim of disguising equity funding “remains unsubstantiated”. Uefa’s ban was overturned.

    The view of some of those from that investigation, as well as senior football insiders, is that the Jaber Mohamed example remains key because this was City’s own evidence. It cannot be disputed. The argument is also that it laid out hard facts that afford the right to believe all of the emails are credible. That went beyond one common counterpoint that this ultimately just comes down to interpretation of the emails, or even wider issues like the failings of PSR or poor drafting of the rules as in the recent Leicester City case.

    The latter two, particularly, are tangents that don't have real bearing on this case.

    It is merely about available facts and claims matching, and the allegation of dishonesty.

    As regards the facts of the dates that CAS ruled on, those time limits do not apply to the Premier League case. The English competition’s investigation also had access to a second tranche of Football Leaks emails that were released after the CAS decision, and essentially represented the documents that Uefa had been asking for throughout their case.

    It is possible that some of this could have been addressed with the initial Premier League investigation. As it stands, however, 30 of the charges regard breaches of rules requiring member clubs to co-operate with the competition's investigations.

    City’s legal justification for refusing to co-operate with the Uefa case was the legal principle that information was “hacked or stolen”. That stance has further enraged some other executives, though. That is because the Premier League is actually nothing more than a members’ club, with the 20 partners merely signing up to its rules. This, in part, is why expulsion is being talked about.

    One of the most widespread predictions for the case is that City will at the very least face a significant punishment for non-compliance, especially since that issue was so prominently raised in the Everton and Nottingham Forest judgements.

    Even after the CAS decision, Bjorn Hessert - a University of Zurich research assistant for one of the judges but writing in a personal capacity - argued that City’s failure to provide a key document was a violation of Uefa’s rules that “should have resulted in a ban”. Hessert found the outcome all the more “unfortunate” since it serves to “punish the compliant clubs”.

    These represent two major questions that are at least likely to significantly influence the outcome of the Premier League case. One is how City address the case of Jaber Mohamed and Etisalat. Another is how the Premier League view the extent of non-compliance.


    It is going to take some time, however, before anyone outside a very small group of people has any idea how they go.
     
    Wingtips1 repped this.
  14. Samarkand

    Samarkand Member+

    May 28, 2001
    IMG_5294.jpeg
     
    B.A. and owian repped this.
  15. bayred

    bayred Member+

    Liverpool FC
    United States
    May 28, 2018
  16. Samarkand

    Samarkand Member+

    May 28, 2001
    City’s legal fees have been estimated in the £50-75m range.
     
  17. zaqualung

    zaqualung Member+

    Jun 17, 2015
    San Francisco
    Club:
    Liverpool FC

    No problem - they can bung the figures onto the books as 500K and 750K
     
  18. owian

    owian Member+

    Liverpool FC, San Diego Loyal
    May 17, 2002
    San Diego
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    This season's champion is not going to be decided on the pitch but in the courts. And based on how slowly the process has been guessing it could be into next season before we know the verdict. Assuming we have a next season.
     
  19. SamScouse

    SamScouse Member+

    Jun 1, 2015
    Toronto
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    excluding the standard UAE under-the counter envelopes, free trips to Dubai etc etc
     
  20. imasyko

    imasyko Member+

    May 16, 2002
    Spring City, PA
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
  21. SamScouse

    SamScouse Member+

    Jun 1, 2015
    Toronto
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    YES, PLEEEAAAASE!

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2024/09/19/man-city-could-be-expelled-from-all-competitions/
    Man City could be expelled from all competitions, not just the Premier League
    Rules governing the FA Cup, League Cup, Champions League and Club World Cup suggest that City could be banned there too

    Ben Rumsby
    19 September 2024 11:54am

    Manchester City are in danger of being thrown out of more than just the Premier League if they are found guilty of serious breaches of its financial rules.

    It can be revealed that City would be at risk of being expelled from both the FA Cup and League Cup, and there is no certainty they would be able to continue to play in the Champions League or at the Club World Cup either.

    As disclosed by Telegraph Sport at the start of the so-called ‘Trial of the century’ into what are anywhere between 115 and 130 charges against City, their Premier League rivals do not believe a one-off points deduction would be sufficient punishment if they are found guilty of the vast majority of offences they stand accused of committing.

    Expulsion from the world’s richest league would satisfy those calling for a harsher sanction but would also risk throwing English football into chaos and could lead to its four-time defending champions continuing to play in the FA Cup, EFL Cup and Champions League.

    However, the rules of the two domestic cup competitions do raise the prospect of City’s exile from the game being extended beyond the Premier League.

    Clause 31 of the FA Cup rules, for example, states: “Where a club has been admitted to participate in the competition but is then removed from the league in which it competes (or its league fixtures are suspended), the Professional Game Board [PGB] may remove the club from the competition.”

    The PGB is made up of representatives of the Premier League and English Football League.

    The EFL Cup rules, meanwhile, define participating clubs as “each member from time to time of the league and each member from time to time of the Premier League”.

    Rules governing the Champions League appear to be more complex, with teams requiring a Uefa club licence to play in European competitions.

    Uefa, the FA and the Premier League all have roles in the administration of such licences and Telegraph Sport has been unable to ascertain whether expulsion from a domestic league could be grounds for withdrawal.

    Similarly, detailed regulations governing Fifa’s expanded Club World Cup that begins this summer – for which City qualified after winning the Champions League last year – do not appear to be publicly available.

    However, if City are expelled from all domestic football, it could make it very difficult for them to continue to play in the Champions League and Club World Cup given the long gaps they would face between competitive fixtures.

    The prospect of them winning those competitions at the end of a season in which they are thrown out of the Premier League and potentially other competitions would also rankle with rival clubs and supporters.

    City have repeatedly denied any wrongdoing before and after they were charged by the Premier League and say that they have a “comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence” to support their position and “look forward to this matter being put to rest once and for all”.
     
    LiverpoolFanatic repped this.
  22. owian

    owian Member+

    Liverpool FC, San Diego Loyal
    May 17, 2002
    San Diego
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Been wondering for a while what happens at the start of next year if City are expelled from the prem.

    I don't see City accepting any ruling without taking it all to a real court. And it's pretty unlikely that they will have exhausted all of their options before the season starts again in in August. But on the flip side whoever takes their spot in the prem (guessing they will just only relegate two and still promote three)will obviously have their lawyers ready to go to protect their spot. So do we have a 21 club league? Wait to start until the courts decide?
     
  23. SamScouse

    SamScouse Member+

    Jun 1, 2015
    Toronto
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    I don't believe they can. the PL is a members' club. City agreed - like all members when they join - to follow the rules. But they broke the rules hundreds of times.

    AFAIK the PL can impose whatever penalties their rules allow, and in doing so they will do nothing illegal whatsoever, so no other court would need (or even be able) to get involved.
     
    LiverpoolFanatic repped this.
  24. CB-West

    CB-West Member+

    Sep 20, 2013
    NorCal
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Not defending MC at all, in any way, and maybe they have broken the rules “hundreds of times” - but they are being tried for breaking rules some 115 times…just wanted to clear that up ;)
     
  25. zaqualung

    zaqualung Member+

    Jun 17, 2015
    San Francisco
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Can't see that happening (the underlined)
     

Share This Page