DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
RateTheRef
HTML https://ratetheref.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Club chat
*****************************************************
#Post#: 101996--------------------------------------------------
Man City and #115.
By: TheThingFromLewes Date: February 25, 2026, 3:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
A few stories floating around suggesting a whopping 40-60 point
deduction could be heading their way once this financial stuff
and the outstanding charges have been judged on.
Some bookies have them at 50/1 to get the boot from the PL.
By comparison, we are 400/1 on some sites…
Let’s be honest, this has taken far too long to get sorted, when
you have the likes of Leicester whom seemingly got their verdict
in a flash.
#Post#: 101999--------------------------------------------------
Re: Man City and #115.
By: rustyref Date: February 25, 2026, 4:18 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=TheThingFromLewes
link=topic=7754.msg101996#msg101996 date=1772055736]
A few stories floating around suggesting a whopping 40-60 point
deduction could be heading their way once this financial stuff
and the outstanding charges have been judged on.
Some bookies have them at 50/1 to get the boot from the PL.
By comparison, we are 400/1 on some sites…
Let’s be honest, this has taken far too long to get sorted, when
you have the likes of Leicester whom seemingly got their verdict
in a flash.
[/quote]
Completely different things. The points deductions for
Leicester, and Sheffield Wednesday for that matter, were black
and white. They breached a specific EPL / EFL rule, the
punishment for which are set in stone, it really didn't need a
lot of sorting out. Leicester's took longer as they somehow
managed to use a loophole to say that when they breached they
were neither a member of the EPL or EFL due to their relegation
and the dates of AGMs, but they were never really going to get
away with that.
Whereas Man City are charged with a multitude of offences. A
breach of P&S is just one of them, but the bigger issues are
being accused of misrepresenting sponsorship revenue, failing to
provide accurate and truthful financial information, and
non-cooperation with EPL investigations. That just cannot be
compared with a simple breach of P&S, or going into
administration, it is much more complicated hence why it is
having to go through the legal route.
#Post#: 102000--------------------------------------------------
Re: Man City and #115.
By: TA_Ref Date: February 25, 2026, 4:27 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Well I saw a clip of Kieran Maguire (someone who I think is
respected with regards to this) say half a million pieces of
evidence were presented to the relevant authorities.
To be fair to them, taking in that volume of evidence was always
going to be time consuming and so the process has to be
respected. Although I do agree that I would’ve thought it
would’ve been solved by now.
I think, for the integrity of the league, this needs to be
completed as soon as possible with whatever punishment they deem
necessary. I can only see a points deduction and nothing more -
the number of points will be the interesting part.
#Post#: 102056--------------------------------------------------
Re: Man City and #115.
By: Microscopist Date: February 26, 2026, 8:13 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The problem is that no one apart from those directly involved in
the proceedings knows the substance of the charges. Simply the
charges relate to particular EPL regulations and years. The
charges imply serious and deliberate fraud and the connivance of
other parties including auditors. Without this seriousness of
the charges many of the charges would be time barred. One might
also think that the civil authorities would have taken action if
matters were as serious as is being portrayed.
The initiation of this process were the hacked and manipulated
emails published in Der Spiegel on which basis the Court of
Arbitration for Sport rejected the substantive UEFA charges,
though did find City guilty of non-cooperation (Though City
would argue that someone in UEFA was leaking information given
to them in confidence).
At the moment it isn’t clear what additional evidence the EPL
have over and above that presented to the CAS. Similarly we do
not know what City describe as ‘irrefutable’ evidence to counter
the charges comprises. So speculation on possible penalties is
somewhat premature and it could be argued is largely being done
for profit from internet payment based on the number of clicks
and increasing readership / viewing figures. It is also
noticeable that these speculations tend to be more prominent
when City are challenging the establishment clubs on the pitch
so cynically it could be seen as gaslighting.
The truth, if it is ever found, lies on a spectrum between the
extremes of Mabcester City having committed, along with other
parties, a massive fraud and at the other end that this is a
malicious attack on Manchester City by a cartel of clubs with
American owners. There has been substantial speculation on the
fate of City if truth is found to lie toward-the City fraud end
of the spectrum but there are also serious problems for the EPL
and certain clubs if the truth is found to lie in the direction
of a cartel. Whether the truth will be known in our lifetime
is rather uncertain. Billy Meredith springs to mind.
#Post#: 102067--------------------------------------------------
Re: Man City and #115.
By: rustyref Date: February 27, 2026, 7:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Worth adding that I heard the Kieran Maguire interview and the
40 to 60 point penalty was just his guesswork based on what
other teams have been deducted for much lesser charges. It can
only be guesswork as the hearings have been held in complete
secrecy with everyone involved signing legally binding NDAs,
which unfortunately just adds to the various conspiracy theories
doing the rounds. He also added that whatever the outcome is it
is highly likely that the "losing" party will appeal, so it
could well be that it isn't sorted out this decade.
#Post#: 102082--------------------------------------------------
Re: Man City and #115.
By: Microscopist Date: February 27, 2026, 1:57 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=rustyref link=topic=7754.msg102067#msg102067
date=1772197293]
Worth adding that I heard the Kieran Maguire interview and the
40 to 60 point penalty was just his guesswork based on what
other teams have been deducted for much lesser charges. It can
only be guesswork as the hearings have been held in complete
secrecy with everyone involved signing legally binding NDAs,
which unfortunately just adds to the various conspiracy theories
doing the rounds. He also added that whatever the outcome is it
is highly likely that the "losing" party will appeal, so it
could well be that it isn't sorted out this decade.
[/quote]
I don't believe that Mr Maguire knows any more than you or I
what the real situation is and this contra normality presumption
of guilt is rather tiresome. The only thing I would agree with
is that whatever the judgrment there will most likely be an
appeal.
#Post#: 102163--------------------------------------------------
Re: Man City and #115.
By: Microscopist Date: March 1, 2026, 9:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
If any of you are interested in a relatively factual FAQ of the
115 Charges, though compiled by a City fan he claims no specific
'in the know' information but bases his answers on his
professional experience.
[quote]
28 Jan 2024
Add bookmark
#1
Mods, this has been a request on and off in the 115 Charges
thread for some time. Feel free to move but I thought it might
warrant a thread of its own. The idea here is that the
information is essentially factual with very little/no opinion
thrown into the mix. There are also some significant
simplifications where technical legal/accountancy matters are
concerned.
Why 115 Charges?
There are not 115 wholly different charges. There are
essentially three charges:
City overstated their revenue
City understated their expenses
City have failed to comply with various regulatory
requirements
The first relates principally to the allegation that the
sponsorship from Etihad and Etisalat was in fact disguised
equity funding from ADUG
The second relates to the Al Jazira ‘second contract’ for
Roberto Mancini and image rights players for (IIRC) Yaya Toure
in particular
The third includes a series of allegations that we have not
complied with the PL’s FFP rules, UEFAs FFP rules and the PLs
requirement that we should co-operate with an ongoing
investigation.
It is however alleged that each of these alleged offences is
committed across multiple seasons. One separate charge relates
to each instance of alleged wrongdoing over each of the 10
seasons or so that the charges cover.
If you want an analogy, imagine you drove from London to
Manchester at a steady 100mph and got caught by 12 speeding
cameras. Each represents a separate charge, but they are
different aspects of the same basic allegation.
Do these allegations amount to fraud?
The allegations that we have knowingly misrepresented the
accounts across multiple seasons are tantamount to allegations
of fraud. This is because the allegation is that City's
directors signed off accounts knowing that they did not
represent a true and fair view of City's finances. That is an
offence under the Companies Act. So while the PL have not
accused us outright of fraud, the conduct they are alleging
against the club would, if proved, amount to fraudulent conduct.
"I'm not saying you're guilty of arson, but I saw you set fire
to your own house."
Moreover, it is inherent in the charges that other companies who
have included the amounts of (say) the sponsorship deals in full
must have conspired with City to ensure that the true figure was
artificially (and dishonestly) inflated. Or, in the case of Al
Jazirah, that the employment contract with Mancini was a
complete sham. This too is essentially an allegation of
fraudulent conduct.
The allegations of regulatory breaches (eg non-co-operation) are
not fraudulent in their nature.
What is the standard of proof?
The standard of proof applied by independent panel will be the
balance of probabilities. This means that the tribunal will need
to consider whether it is more likely than not that City have
committed the conduct alleged against them.
However, because the allegations are serious, the evidence which
it would take to satisfy the panel to that standard would need
to be correspondingly cogent. It is inherently unlikely that the
boards of several large companies would all conspire to commit
several legal and regulatory breaches, so to satisfy the panel
that this is what actually happened, the evidence of that will
need to be particularly cogent.
What is the evidence relied on by the PL?
The PL investigation was opened very shortly after the UEFA
investigation, and appeared to lie dormant while the case with
UEFA/CAS ran its course. It is not known that there is any more
evidence available to the PL than was available to UEFA, namely
the Der Spiegel leaked emails.
That said, the PL pursued numerous disclosure applications
against City which were successful. We simply don’t know what
further evidence there may be.
Are any of the allegations time-barred?
Yes. UEFA’s FFP rules had a 5 year time-bar, which had expired
in the case of some of the charges. There is no similar time-bar
under the PL’s rules but the relationship between City and the
PL is essentially that they are both parties to the same
contract. English law says that you have 6 years in most cases
to bring a claim for a breach of contract.
The charges were brought at the beginning of 2023, so on the
face of it, a lot of the claims relating to anything preceding
season 16/17 will be time-barred. However, there is a principle
that if the breach of contract was knowingly concealed, that six
year period will begin not when the breach actually occurred but
when the complainant became aware of it (or, if earlier, should
reasonably have become aware of it.)
So the question of the seriousness of the charges and the
question of what is time barred go hand in hand. The negative,
from City’s point of view, is that the time-bar is not
necessarily a complete defence to the more historic charges
(which is actually most of them). The positive, from City’s
point of view, is that to succeed on the most serious charges,
cogent evidence will be needed to show that City have committed
the breaches alleged. If that evidence is not there, the charges
will fail and would be time-barred anyway.
Are City in danger?
It depends on how you define ‘danger.’ Based on the evidence
that exists within the public domain (eg the evidence in the
'opens skies' case in the USA) it is very difficult to see how
the PL can possibly succeed, at least on the most serious
charges. The non-co-operation charges may be less difficult to
establish, not least because City took the PL to the courts in a
number of respects.
That said, (a) we don’t know what (if any) further evidence the
PL may have, and (b) one possibility is that the PL are pursuing
us precisely because they think the evidence they can point to
will be sufficient to make the charges stick.
What is certain is that if the charges are proved, or
substantially proved, the sanctions applied against City would
be very very serious. Everton have had a points deduction of 10
points on the basis of one admitted allegation of breaching FFP
in one season. If the charges are proved, it is difficult to see
that anything short of relegation (whether by means of a massive
points deduction or otherwise) AND a massive fine would meet the
justice of the case.
If the non-cooperation charge alone was proved but all the
others were dismissed, I would anticipate a fine. A points
deduction for a non-co-operation charge would in my view be
somewhat disproportionate.
Can City appeal to CAS if they lose?
No. There is however a right of appeal to a further Independent
Panel. They would not be starting again and looking at all the
same evidence from the beginning, however, they would be
concentrating on whether the first panel have made an error of
law or arrived at a decision that is perverse on the evidence
before the first panel.
Thereafter there is no further appeal but there is a right of
further legal challenge based on errors of law,
As a practical proposition it is unlikely if City lose at the
first stage and their appeal is also dismissed, that (unless
both panels have got it disastrously wrong) that there would be
much prospect of success in a further legal challenge but you
never know.
If fraud is alleged, why haven’t City been charged by the
criminal authorities?
It would have been unusual for (say) the Serious Fraud Office to
commence an investigation in a case like this where what is
alleged is a breach of the PL’s internal rules. However they
tend not to announce it from the rooftops when they are
commencing an investigation, especially if that would result in
(for instance) evidence being destroyed.
If the charges are proved (and there is no appeal), it is quite
probable that a criminal allegation would be launched. Given how
high-profile this case is, it would be difficult for the SFO to
resist the pressure to launch their own investigation.
However, the standard of proof in a criminal case is even higher
– it is beyond reasonable doubt – and the age of some of the
charges means that it would be very difficult to persuade a jury
that the accounts signed off 12 or 13 years ago were
knowingly/fraudulently mis-stated. Moreover, if City lost it is
almost inevitable that there would be an appeal, which would
mean that the events in question were even more historic.
Never say never, but criminal charges seems very very unlikely
even if the PL charges are successful.
EDIT #1
Added in answer to a separate question
Who sits on these panels?
About five years ago the PL established a panel from whom the
members of any independent disciplinary commission will be
appointed. There are about 12 members of the panel. In practice
they tend to be practising KCs or retired judges. The chair of
the panel is Murray Rosen KC. That does not mean he sits on all
the independent commissions or that he will sit on City’s.
Usually three will be appointed by the chair of the panel to
hear any particular disciplinary case.
Murray Rosen might sit on City's panel, but in the event of an
appeal he would have to appoint the members of the appeal panel
from a similar but smaller pool. To avoid the argument that he
would hand-pick a panel that would be the most likely to uphold
his own decision I doubt he would sit on the first panel, though
he might sit on the appeal.
The members of the panel tend to be people with an interest in
football and they may or may not be match-going regulars at any
particular team. I would imagine that the rules under which they
are appointed require them to state their team allegiance and
they will be barred from hearing disciplinary cases involving
those teams.
That said, these are serious players in a game where being a
serious player is the norm. They would only be appointed as
KCs/Judges having demonstrated outstanding intellect and
integrity, and appointment to a high-profile disciplinary panel
would require them again to demonstrate those qualities. This is
not some Kangaroo Court, it will be an assembly of highly
trained, widely experienced and intellectually formidable
individuals.
There is sometimes an argument raised along the lines that
membership of a disciplinary or similar panel of that sort both
constitutes a source of income and is a matter of status, and so
there is an inevitable tendency on the part of members of those
panels to recognise the hand that feeds them. Whether or not an
individual panel member is biased depends on the facts of a
case. If these were valid criticisms in themselves every member
of every pool of potential members of a disciplinary committee
would be biased. In fact, whilst not peanuts, the fees received
for hearing a disciplinary case like this would make up only a
small proportion of their overall remuneration for the year.
Panel members are appointed because of their independence, not
because they are likely to surrender it, and many have a
tendency to demonstrate that independence.
Of course, everyone gets it wrong from time to time. Sometimes a
judge just doesn’t see things the same way that a claimant or
defendant does. But there is no reason whatsoever for thinking,
at least at this stage, that the hearing will be anything other
than full, detailed, scrupulously fair and intellectually
rigorous. This panel is to the individuals who made the PL’s
charging decision what CAS was to UEFA ‘s first
committee.[/quote]
*****************************************************