By Tony Attwood
This is how Goal sums up the ongoing legal case:
“City’s hearing is completely confidential and their fate will be decided by an unnamed three-person panel. They could be relegated if found guilty. The location of the hearing was even kept from other clubs, and the next public release of information will come when the “final awards” are published. That may well be the final ruling, and it could arrive in months.”
Unfortunately what Goal and indeed the Telegraph (which has extensive coverage of the frustration if not the actual event) says is nothing about what it is being kept secret.
The Mail does tell us that the location is the “International Dispute Resolution Centre in London (IDRC) has been revealed as the venue.” It is, they helpfully tell us (in case we don’t have a map) “in the shadow of St Paul’s Cathedral.” Well, yes, but it depends on the time of day and the weather.
And just in case you fancied popping in for lunch they helpfully add, “A sandwich sets you back £13.95,”
Here are the details of what ManC are charged with…
- Failure to provide accurate and up-to-date financial information from 2009-10 to 2017-18: 54 charges
- Failure to provide accurate financial reports for player and manager compensation from 2009-10 to 2017-18: 14 charges
- Failure to comply with UEFA’s regulations, including UEFA’s Club and Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations : 5 charges
- Breaches of Premier League profitability and sustainability regulations from 2015-16 to and including 2017-18 season : 7 charges
- Failure to cooperate with Premier League investigations from December 2018 onwards: 35 charges.
Which by and large is quite a lot really.
The Mail does however come up with one other interesting point in that if ManC lose, “The prospect of widespread litigation from other clubs may also ensue. Sides which have lost out on a title or a European place could lay claim to compensation.”
But let us look back for a moment to the last time that Manchester City were hauled over the coals. In February 2020 ManC were given a two-year suspension from European competition by Uefa’s Club Financial Control Body,, but the penalty was overturned at the Court of Arbitration for Sport in July 2021 on the grounds that Uefa had taken too long to put their appeal case in. It is possible that Manchester City will try the same trick again. After all, as it worked once…
There have been quite a few speculations on what will happen if ManC are found guilty on any of the charges – mostly there is the thought they will appeal and quite possibly drag the appeal out so that in the end the League runs out of money. Or they could try the time-barred trick again which worked so successfully against Uefa – of course we don’t know.
However what there is no speculation about is what happens beyond the result being announced. Then if there are guilty verdicts there is the case of punishment, or if there are not guilty verdicts there is the case of recriminations and cases by ManC against the League Plus of course the other case that ManC has brought against the Premier League and that could have just as many implications as the case against ManC.
For as the Guardian headline put it. “Manchester City’s legal case has power to blow Premier League’s house down.
On 13 August the Mail said, “Man City’s separate legal case against the Premier League to be ruled on ‘in the next TWO WEEKS’, City issued a 165-page claim against the Premier League, alleging that Associated Party Transaction rules discriminated against Gulf ownership.”
ManC is, we are told, ‘expecting victory’ in that case and a verdict is due soon
Back in June Sky Sports web site said the case would last two weeks and indeed some sites are now saying the case has brought the club some success but the result of the hearing has not been released.
A defeat there could be as damaging to the League as in the Big Case since it would blow a hole in much of the League’s ability to regulate itself as it wants to.
However media speculation about what happens after the results is still muted. If Manchester City win the right to go on spending money as they wish, will the rest of the League agree to carry on playing them, knowing that by and large Manchester City can buy any players any time in order to give them an unbeatable team? In effect will Arsenal, Liverpool, Manchester United and Chelsea agree to be part of a league which they know that in almost all likelihood is going to be even more lopsided than the Scottish League which at least has two clubs that might win the title?
Indeed, why would they when they can resign en masse and set up their own league without ManC with a fair range of clubs who have realistic ambitions of winning?
And there is another point. Would all the big clubs that have spent fortunes upgrading their grounds happily settle into a world in which they, and their fans, know they can never again win a trophy? If you want to know what that looks like, consider Scotland. Starting in 2011/12 there have been 13 seasons. In those 13 seasons, Celtic have won the league 12 times. That is what England will be like if ManC get away with this and that is why some clubs are muttering behind closed doors about forming a new league.
So why is the trial being held in secret? Because of the implications of what happens to English football if ManC win. As for what happens to ManC if they lose – that’s maybe best left for another article.
liar
Its the PL rules. Thats why its held in secret same rule for everton PSR was held in secret… so stop lying
Wow, we never heard dross like this during United’s 2 decades of domination.
I am now 82 and have been a fan for over 73 years. The great thing about our league (or was) that any team could win a title or cup until a Tottenham purchas3d a team of stars at great. OST on 1959 / 62. They were a great side but they were purchased. Then we went back to mostly home grown or low cost players until Liverpool did a Spurs followed by Man U. They dominated every year for decades. The worst thing of all was when a second level club like Chelsea were bought and paid for by the Russian dodgy one who then purchased every trophy available for over 10 seasons. They were usurped by the Arabs desire to do the same and we have the farce called Man City !!
They have been lauded as a great club (they were in the Franny Lee days ) but as with the other bent clubs mentioned, they purchased every cup etc for years and dare 8 say it, they had a lot of dodgy decisions. On the field and off ! Most of them made sure they won titles and ups they should have lost so going into the record books for purchased achievements. Are we going to sit and watch the bent lawyers get City out of this latest set of charges?.
Alan Gee
“So why is the trial being held in secret?”
Liar, you say.
Then you state:
Its the PL rules. Thats why its held in secret same rule for everton PSR was held in secret… so stop lying.
Fine, but could you explain where the lie is in respect to that statement because as far I can see all Tony did was ask a question?
It’s a question, not a statement of fact so how can it be a lie?
Perhaps you could explain?
Or maybe you were referring to this?
Here are the details of what Man C are charged with…
Failure to provide accurate and up-to-date financial information from 2009-10 to 2017-18: 54 charges
Failure to provide accurate financial reports for player and manager compensation from 2009-10 to 2017-18: 14 charges
Failure to comply with UEFA’s regulations, including UEFA’s Club and Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations : 5 charges
Breaches of Premier League profitability and sustainability regulations from 2015-16 to and including 2017-18 season : 7 charges
Failure to cooperate with Premier League investigations from December 2018 onwards: 35 charges.
Maybe you think that’s another 115 lies?
Again, if you could explain.
You can use more than 20 words if it helps.
Keep turning left when you leave your house Gee. I don’t think you can manage to cross the street.
@ Nitram
I just logged on and I see Alan Gee hasn’t replied to you. I hope you don’t mind if I attempt to assist.
In Tony’s final paragraph of this article he poses the question, “So why is the trial being held in secret?”. Tony, as far as I am concerned, then puts forward the following answer(s) to his question in the two sentences immediately following the question, “Because of the implications of what happens to English football if ManC win. As for what happens to ManC if they lose – that’s maybe best left for another article.”
As far as I am aware this hearing is being held in secret because those are the Premier League rules, and if that is the case Alan Gee is quite correct in his assertion, if one takes Tony’s comments literally. For what it’s worth I wouldn’t use the term Alan Gee has used. I prefer to think that Tony knows his regular audience and has written accordingly.
As regards the 115 charges I know about as much as anyone else not directly involved in the case and that is very little. I know there are actually more than 115 charges, so I guess that puts me ahead of most people. I read the CAS verdict, so I also know that not all of UEFA’s allegations were time barred and I’m sure Tony knows that too, but when your writing for effect,, poetic licence sometimes creeps in!
While Tony writes some interesting articles, this is not somewhere I’d come to read an unbiased piece about Manchester City. Untold is primarily for Arsenal supporters and anynone coming on this site should expect an Arsenal bias.
Memories dim quickly. I seem to remember the owners of Arsenal, Chelsea, Tottenham, Manchester United and Liverpool were more than happy to join a European Super League with Manchester City. How does that ssquare with these clubs now wanting nothing to do with Maanchester City?
130 charges?
@Tim, @Alan Gee,
I guess the english language and they way a question is being ‘prepared’ as well as the meaning behind a question evade you.
The simple fact you need to argue : this is the Pl rules just shows your contempt for Tony and want to put him in public under the ‘idiot’ label.
Yeah, Tony did not know this before you put him straight. Great, thanks for enlightning out day.
Now most readers did understand the why question was asked relative the the rule itself.
A few options I can think of :
– the Pl is a private organisation. As such it can discuss it’s issues in private
– the PL may not want that all and sundry get informed about issues at the private organisations that all it’s members are
– some matters discussed may be about contracts with broadcasters or advertisers, or cotnracts with players and staff members. That is not public information as well
– the clubs are in the hands of rich, very rich, obscenelx rich people and organisations. Have you ever seen anyone wanting transparency ?
– the PL is subsidising a top-secretive organisation called PGMO and seems very happy doing so. Are you expecting it to hold itself to any higher standard
– the press at large are understanding nothing. Imagine bringing them in to witness the show… it would be full mayhem with all these incompetents giving their opinion on top of all
I guess you could probably say : all of the above
So, just remember the saying : when the wise man shows the moon, the idiot looks at the finger
Talking of liars.
Note: This is another comment on last weeks Rice incident so if you are bored with it I suggest you stop reading now. Personally for me, rather than the injustice of the incident itself, which is bad enough, it is now more about to what lengths the PGMOL will go in order to defend the indefensible, so please forgive me for ‘banging on about it’ as I think it is important. Others may disagree. Anyway:
I see Webb has admitted Joao Pedro should of been Yellow Carded for kicking the ball away in the Brighton game, which is fine. But a blind man in a dark room looking the other way knows that, but ho hum.
But really it was just another excuse to yet again attempt to defend Kavanaghs ridiculous decision to send Rice off. He says:
“‘As you hear from Chris Kavanagh, he’s clearly seen Declan Rice commit a foul then kick the ball away for (from?) an opponent who was in the process of taking a free kick.”
Lie.
So, 3 actions happen one after the other: Rice commits a foul. VELTMAN KICKS THE BALL AWAY. It hits Rice and he kicks it sideways.
So, if Kavanagh so clearly saw the foul by Rice and Rice kick the ball, how comes he conveniently missed Veltman kicking the ball away from the position of the original offence? And may I add AT Rice. Surely, if he saw the 1st and 3rd action he must of seen the 2nd one that happened between them? Or is it okay for Veltman to try and pinch a few yards but not for Rice to kick it back to the correct position? (Which is what my mind reading skills suggest he was doing)
“‘People want to see the game with tempo and flow. I think once he’s seen Declan Rice deliberately, clearly kick that ball away from the position of that free kick I don’t think he’s got any chance (choice?) but to send him off.’”
Lie.
Again, it wasn’t Rice who kicked the ball away “from the position of that free kick”, Veltman did! The initial foul occurred 3 yards at least further back and it was Veltman that kicked the ball away, and again AT RICE.
Asked about the ball still moving while Veltman attempted to take the free kick, Webb replied: ‘It may have been but Declan Rice still felt the need to kick that ball away. It still has that impact.
Lie.
How does Webb know Rice ‘felt the need’ to kick the ball away? Is he a mind reader now? Rice may of kicked it through instinct as it hit him on the heel? He may of kicked it in the full knowledge it was in the wrong place and moving? He may of been, as I suggested earlier, kicking it back to where the foul occurred?
NOBODY knows what Rice was thinking and for these officials to keep claiming ‘he knows what he is doing’ is ridiculous.
All this put together means Rices action had NO IMPACT AT ALL because taking a free kick whilst the ball is moving and in the wrong place, means it has to be retaken anyway.
Veltman is the first player to ‘kick the ball way’. Veltman attempts to take the free kick from the incorrect place. Veltman attempts to take the free kick whist the ball is moving. Veltman attempts to kick the ball AT Rice. You cannot ignore any one of those FOUR transgressions that occured before Rice touches the ball.
Webb saying you can simply in order to justify a second Yellow for Rice is as laughable today as it was last week.
Nitram, I agree totally. I would add that Veltman’s deliberate kicking of Rice’s legs when the ball was not even in play was a clear red card offence in its own right. Interesting that this was ignored by Kavanagh and VAT, and most subsequent commentators, including that well-known Man Utd fan, Mr. Webb.
Am I being dense? Why was there even a conversation between Kavanagh and VAR? VAR is only supposed to get involved with red card offences. Rice received a second yellow card.
Howard Webb and his tame stooge are not exactly covering themselves, the PGMOL or the Premier League in glory.
Clown world.
“We said we’d be consistent in the way we handle this”. In what way have PGMOL been consistent, apart from their targetted application of the laws of the game.
seismic
“Am I being dense? Why was there even a conversation between Kavanagh and VAR? VAR is only supposed to get involved with red card offences. Rice received a second yellow card.”
No, you are not, and another good point.
But my guess is VAR got involved regarding the Veltmans kick on Rice. The moment it became clear VAR were involved I thought they were looking at that, and like many watching I believe, I expected that a red card for Veltman would ensue. When events transpired as they did I was, and as you can tell, still am, gobsmacked.
I honestly believe if that had happened we wouldn’t of heard another word about this incident., because as we have seen since, in a similar incident last year Gallagher says a red card should of been issued.
But, yes. Yet again they just don’t get asked these questions that mere mortals like us would be asking!!
“Howard Webb and his tame stooge are not exactly covering themselves, the PGMOL or the Premier League in glory.”
Indeed they are not, and their hypocrisy and double talk in attempting to defend the indefensible is cringe worthy.
But what is perhaps worse, is the medias, especially SKY Sports, complicity in this. They are endlessly giving airtime to the PGMOL and it’s apologists, who are still defending Kavanaghs decision.
Not once have I heard or read a proper inquisition of the events and how they unfolded. Yes, the moving ball has been mentioned but not answered, unless you are gullible enough to accept Webbs “It may have been (moving) but Declan Rice still felt the need to kick that ball away”!!!! FFS Totally dismissed out of hand.
No questioning of that. Just pathetic acceptance of it’s validity as a defence.
Not even asking “Surely, if the ball was moving, the kick would of had to of been retaken anyway, meaning Rice couldn’t of delayed the kick. It had to be re taken anyway.”
I haven’t heard it mentioned once that Veltman was the first player to ‘kick the ball away’ moving it 3 yards from the where the offence took place.
Or any of the other points I have raised.
To me, the complicity of the media, and SKY in particular, in the defence of this incident is as big as the incident itself. I say this because ultimately, if the media are not prepared to challenge ridiculously incompetent decisions such as this, and worse, be complicit in it’s defence, how are we ever going to see any sort of change with our officials?