I have it on very good authority that Manchester City were incredibly fortunate to get away when, in July 2020, a three-man Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) panel cleared City, by a majority verdict, of the serious charge of overstating revenues. In February 2020, following a hearing before 5 international judges, they were banned by UEFA from European competition for two seasons and also fined €30m (£26.8m). Why would such a three-man arbitral panel (including a partner in a US law firm) be in a better position to determine the issue ?
The ban was overturned by CAS and the fine was reduced to €10m (£8.9m). At the hearing, the panel found most of the breaches alleged were not established or that they were time-barred, which effectively meant they occurred too long ago for UEFA to do anything about them.
Significantly, no time-bar or limitation defence will be available to City in the Premier League proceedings.
It's noteworthy that the Premier League's charges against City were only laid the day before the outline legislation was put before Parliament - the spurious message being that "we can look after after our own affairs" - which they plainly can't. The proposed legislative introduction of a football regulator was plainly the catalyst. Let's hope that the legislation reaches the statute books in short order and is not delayed by the latest governmental nonsense trumpeted following the Supreme Court decison this week.
It's also worth noting that CAS found “no conclusive evidence that they disguised funding from their owner as sponsorship”.
I think City were punished in the end only because they failed to cooperate with parts of the UEFA investigation.
A lot of people are obviously getting carried away with the '115 charges' and assuming they're guilty but there are reports that a lot of them are pointless and basically a bunch of charges all grouped under 1 charge and will go nowhere. Some 'in the know' city fans as well as Simon Jordan on Talksport have said the charges only really boil down to 4-5 main ones. ie. if City can disprove 1 group charge then it will exonerate them from 20-30 charges under that group.
One of the alleged charges is regarding off the book payments to Roberto Mancini. He himself has said that he's never once been asked by anyone related to the case about these payments. But if he is asked and he (for example) testified the payments were for consultancy work, then they can't prove otherwise and the charge goes nowhere.
I'm sure City are likely guilty of something but there's not a hope in hell they're going to be found guilty of 115 offences.
Shabby sensationalised reporting as always Everton got deducted 10 points - Portsmouth got deducted 9 points for going into Administration - that's finance related rule breaking - essentially not paying your creditors or overspending by spending money you never had. Everton will appeal of course and this can will get kicked down several roads and eventually some of it will stay in the long grass Everton probably easier meat than the big big overspenders cos they're not going to be able to afford the same level of legal representation to run interference, obfuscate and tie up the rule makers in delays and manufactured legal complexity. EPL doesn't really want to give its owners/members too much of a hard time cos it's got its product to protect. I foresee a plea deal and "suspended" punishments. It ain't about to be relegating its box office teams is it? Suspecting there's been malfeasance and proving it are very different things. Proving misdeeds and making it stick in higher courts is even more difficult. I don't get why the FA or UEFA or EPL give a damn for any "independent" jurisdiction anyway. Play by the EPL's rules or get punished or get lost. How is any 'Court For Sport' independent anyway? Independent from whom? They don't do it for free do they? They can never truly be independent from the party paying the bills.
Are PSG gonna get the same level of scrutiny from UEFA for example?
Hopefully Charlton's new management structure will do everything it can to restore the club's income streams, in order that the operating budget can be progressively increased. No owner is going to keep on burning multi millions to stagnate.
This decision and any others to follow are important to the lower leagues as well.
Currently professional football is nothing more than a mechanism for rich people/corporations/countries to move large amounts of cash into the hands of footballers.
With limited financial controls over the Uber-rich at the top end (essentially those with so much cash they can spend whatever they like with limited risk to their finances) it so skews the market that clubs lower down have to play the same game to even stand a chance of getting even a modicum of success. However these clubs simply cannot fund this for very long if at all.
Without reining in those clubs backed by pretty much limitless money the rest of football stays in the shit state is is currently in.
Both Everton and Forest could get fresh sanction shortly
This.
Everton still have a sanction for the next rolling 3 years. I believe that will decided upon in early April, and I think those 3 years once again show a loss exceeding the allowable figure.
So, assuming the same rules are followed they will be hit with another 6 point deduction.
Cynic makes me think that by reducing to 6 they can bang another 6 on them in April and they still may well stay up meaning there is no court case at the end.
Both Everton and Forest could get fresh sanction shortly
This.
Everton still have a sanction for the next rolling 3 years. I believe that will decided upon in early April, and I think those 3 years once again show a loss exceeding the allowable figure.
So, assuming the same rules are followed they will be hit with another 6 point deduction.
Both Everton and Forest could get fresh sanction shortly
This.
Everton still have a sanction for the next rolling 3 years. I believe that will decided upon in early April, and I think those 3 years once again show a loss exceeding the allowable figure.
So, assuming the same rules are followed they will be hit with another 6 point deduction.
Yeah for next season
No under new rules the sanction will be applied this season and any appeals have to be completed this season. Depending on their accounts they could be in trouble again next year though due to the rolling nature of accounting rules
Cynical of me - but I wouldn’t be surprised if they looked at the table and realised that Everton are still struggling more than expected to pull away from Luton, and so they needed to give a helping hand.
Comments
I think City were punished in the end only because they failed to cooperate with parts of the UEFA investigation.
A lot of people are obviously getting carried away with the '115 charges' and assuming they're guilty but there are reports that a lot of them are pointless and basically a bunch of charges all grouped under 1 charge and will go nowhere. Some 'in the know' city fans as well as Simon Jordan on Talksport have said the charges only really boil down to 4-5 main ones. ie. if City can disprove 1 group charge then it will exonerate them from 20-30 charges under that group.
One of the alleged charges is regarding off the book payments to Roberto Mancini. He himself has said that he's never once been asked by anyone related to the case about these payments. But if he is asked and he (for example) testified the payments were for consultancy work, then they can't prove otherwise and the charge goes nowhere.
I'm sure City are likely guilty of something but there's not a hope in hell they're going to be found guilty of 115 offences.
Chelsea on the other end. Throw the book at the f*ckers!!!
Everton got deducted 10 points - Portsmouth got deducted 9 points for going into Administration - that's finance related rule breaking - essentially not paying your creditors or overspending by spending money you never had.
Everton will appeal of course and this can will get kicked down several roads and eventually some of it will stay in the long grass
Everton probably easier meat than the big big overspenders cos they're not going to be able to afford the same level of legal representation to run interference, obfuscate and tie up the rule makers in delays and manufactured legal complexity.
EPL doesn't really want to give its owners/members too much of a hard time cos it's got its product to protect. I foresee a plea deal and "suspended" punishments.
It ain't about to be relegating its box office teams is it?
Suspecting there's been malfeasance and proving it are very different things. Proving misdeeds and making it stick in higher courts is even more difficult.
I don't get why the FA or UEFA or EPL give a damn for any "independent" jurisdiction anyway. Play by the EPL's rules or get punished or get lost. How is any 'Court For Sport' independent anyway? Independent from whom? They don't do it for free do they? They can never truly be independent from the party paying the bills.
Are PSG gonna get the same level of scrutiny from UEFA for example?
Hopefully Charlton's new management structure will do everything it can to restore the club's income streams, in order that the operating budget can be progressively increased.
No owner is going to keep on burning multi millions to stagnate.
There's a very good, objective analysis of the position by Kieran Maguire in yesterday's 'Price of Football' Podcast - https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/the-price-of-football/id1482886394
burnley and sheff utd already gone pretty much.
and then 1 from luton or forest i would say
If they're allowed to do that and get away with it, it sets a dangerous precedent.
Everton still have a sanction for the next rolling 3 years. I believe that will decided upon in early April, and I think those 3 years once again show a loss exceeding the allowable figure.
So, assuming the same rules are followed they will be hit with another 6 point deduction.
Not a knob head but Shelvey was there for a bit wasn't he.