Premier League Investigation

[terraloon]

Based on recent comments from Masters re the ongoing investigation and the inference within that things are fast reaching a conclusion I thought it might be a good idea to start a thread where comments re this issue could be posted as opposed to people adding such comments to other threads.


I found Masters comment really interesting and yes I may have misread but I am actually, at this point, not as concerned as I was previously.

There are three routes  the matter could go:

1) Independent Commission ( IC) 

2) Agreed Settlement 

3) No further action.

 1)To progress the matter to an IC the PL disciplinary team will have to be  confident that they can prove matters to a standard  of the “balance of probability” 

Ah you might say the owners self reported matters but that is the first unknown in that we haven’t a clue what has been reported. Irrespective as Masters acknowledges it’s complicated and my guess if for no other reason is that RA and previous directors/ officials can not be compelled to engage with the investigation meaning that it’s highly unlikely that any of those individuals will have been interviewed, if they have they almost certainly would have not added too much but unless they had access specifically to RA and his own accounts and records without context it would be very difficult to reach a balanced conclusion.

2) If I were a betting man this would be the outcome. What this would mean is that  PL and Chelsea would reach the stage where indiscretions would appear to have happened but the PL might not be confident enough to test their evidence in front of IC. 
On the flip Chelsea will possibly/ probably be content to acknowledge that matters were not as they should be but again if a set of sanctions can be agreed between the two parties then whilst the evidence isn’t tested a panel will be required to rubber stamp the details of the settlement.

Bear in mind that there is still circa £100 million in reserve. A sum that was withheld from the proceeds of sale and to be honest keeping it won’t be off any benefit to the owners or the PL as that £100million  will simply be moved to the frozen account in which the proceeds of sale held. Imagine what that sum could do either as a payment to PL clubs “ impacted “ during 2012-219 or to the wider football community 

Another reason I think / hope this will be the route is that it will  set a precedent which almost certainly would be there prior to resolution of the city case and should that not go well for city without mitigation who knows what any IC would level.

So  I would be content a fine of £50-£100 million ( unprecedented) not sure at all about a points deduction maybe 6 points most of which would be suspended and a two window embargo. It’s time that some on here acknowledge that there was an issue uncovered and self reported and it’s one of the issues that the new owners have had to try and navigate and above all prepare the club should there be draconian sanctions 

3) Would be the ideal but I suspect unlikely

Thoughts 

 

[evissy]

Knowing very little about the case as we all do. But good summation of the case of what we could expect. 

It probably depends a lot on what the case is about. 

Problem with sanctioning a major club like Chelsea and City is you also tarnish many many organizations and the league itself. 

This is why usually slaps on the wrist is the way to go.

 

[petre ispirescu]

Knowing very little about the case as we all do. But good summation of the case of what we could expect. 

It probably depends a lot on what the case is about. 

Problem with sanctioning a major club like Chelsea and City is you also tarnish many many organizations and the league itself. 

This is why usually slaps on the wrist is the way to go.

From what I understand the current board are cooperating and blame the former regime for whatever the PL are accusing Chelsea of.

It's probably going to be a massive fine and a transfer ban for a minumum of two or three windows. Hence the investment in a lot of young players and a bloated squad. Probably Clearlake know a longer transfer ban is inevitable at this point.

 

[dermott]

The Man City inquiry, when it happens, will blow this out of the water.

 

[Snedger]

I think I read that Masters said that the PL doesn't want asterisk next to teams in league tables (or something like that) and  that again vey much points to the PL doing nothing that could in any way tarnish their product. So yes, sitting on the naughty step will be as severe as any punishment will get.

 

[Guest]

If I were to guess, with us self reporting and the indiscretions being under a previous regime (that was unlawfully forced into selling the club in the first place) It’ll be a X figure fine and a suspended points deduction.
 

Which will lay the foundations for the City punishment to be a larger fine and a higher points deduction that they can then reduce on appeal. 
 

It’s all a show for the cameras and shouldn’t even be an issue for any club if it wasn’t for the absurdly communist idea of FFP/PSR 

 

[Niall1905]

I think there are 3 ways to look at it;

1 - The have been sporting benefits as a result of the supposed rule breaking and therefore a sporting punishment should be given. This will be the viewpoint rivals will take. 

2- It was a self reported issue that happened under previous ownership, through which we have been assisting with the investigation and not impeding in anyway. Therefore this should be considered and a fine would suffice, especially as it will 'come from the previous owners' in the form of the £100m put aside for this exact thing. This is what Id imagine most of us want. 

3 - Will probably be a blend of the 2 above. The league will want punishment to be percieved as strong enough so that it discourages future issues from us and others, but they'll want to be seen to be rewarding the way in which we have conducted ourselves as well as ensuring the integrety of their product. Especially with the problems they have had with City fighting them on the 115. 

I see a big fine and potentially a small transfer ban (that might help us). A suspended points deduction would be interesting, even a small points deduction wouldnt be the end of the world. 

 

[evissy]

The Man City inquiry, when it happens, will blow this out of the water.

My concern here is City is the crown jewel of the league. Will they want to tarnish the Premier League itself of the past 6 years or so by saying this lot won the league 5 times over this period and all the results should be cancelled. Or something in lines of this. Every sponsor and affiliate will also be affected. I think it will be brushed off in some clean way.

 

[Sconnie Blue]

My concern here is City is the crown jewel of the league. Will they want to tarnish the Premier League itself of the past 6 years or so by saying this lot won the league 5 times over this period and all the results should be cancelled. Or something in lines of this. Every sponsor and affiliate will also be affected. I think it will be brushed off in some clean way.

That is why they need to be careful for what ever punishment they give. It has to fit the crime and the backlash from the other 19 clubs is far worse than City being upset. 

 

[dermott]

My concern here is City is the crown jewel of the league. Will they want to tarnish the Premier League itself of the past 6 years or so by saying this lot won the league 5 times over this period and all the results should be cancelled. Or something in lines of this. Every sponsor and affiliate will also be affected. I think it will be brushed off in some clean way.

We'll see. MC got off lightly in the UEFA investigation on a technicality: UEFA's rules contain a statute of limitations. They were unable to pursue the case back beyond 5 years, a time when the alleged dodgy behaviour was underway. The PL's investigations have no such statute of limitations. They can go as far back as they want to. The bundle of hacked leaked MC emails detail their contempt for any inquiry, their planning to derail any inquiry, and their means of covering their tracks. Damning stuff in their own words.

The difference with Chelsea is that (a) it was under a different ownership regime; and (b) it was self-reported. That's not to say Chelsea will get off but it's an entirely different set of circumstances to the MC situation.

 

[Sheva]

I think City are far from the jewel of the premier league and expect this to be very drawn out in legal battles.

Fully expect the premier league and the other clubs to punish them.

 

[Sconnie Blue]

[No message]

 

[Scott]

The Man City inquiry, when it happens, will blow this out of the water.

If it happens. Never underestimate to power of Middle Eastern Oil money.

 

[terraloon]

We'll see. MC got off lightly in the UEFA investigation on a technicality: UEFA's rules contain a statute of limitations. They were unable to pursue the case back beyond 5 years, a time when the alleged dodgy behaviour was underway. The PL's investigations have no such statute of limitations. They can go as far back as they want to. The bundle of hacked leaked MC emails detail their contempt for any inquiry, their planning to derail any inquiry, and their means of covering their tracks. Damning stuff in their own words.

The difference with Chelsea is that (a) it was under a different ownership regime; and (b) it was self-reported. That's not to say Chelsea will get off but it's an entirely different set of circumstances to the MC situation.

For me the reason that City “ got off lightly “ was more to with the negligence and incompetence of UEFA as opposed to a technicality.

UEFA were so convinced they had city bang to rights that  clearly wasn’t so , simply because thinking something and proving even on that balance of probabilities isn’t one and the same thing and that’s something worth bearing in mind when our case proceeds .

City failed to engage with UEFA and indeed were fined for their lack of engagement but CAS because of constraints within Swiss Law weren’t able to draw conclusions for Cities belligerent behaviour. That won’t wash with the PL case simply because in English law in certain circumstances conclusions can be drawn from silence/ lack of engagement.

It’s a bit of misconception to believe that matters aren’t time barred when it comes to Cities PL case and come to that our case.

Irrespective of time limits not being mentioned any disciplinary matter has to be handled in accordance with English Law and here all matters will be guided by the Limitations Act 1980 there it  states :

An action founded on tort shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued.

There are exclusions for instance where it is proven that the matter came about due to fraud, concealment or failure to disclose then that  6 year limit won’t apply.

 

[SydneyChelsea]

Irrespective of time limits not being mentioned any disciplinary matter has to be handled in accordance with English Law and here all matters will be guided by the Limitations Act 1980 there it  states :

An action founded on tort shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued.

There are exclusions for instance where it is proven that the matter came about due to fraud, concealment or failure to disclose then that  6 year limit won’t apply.

Possible this is the reason for the extensive delay. The PL must have sufficient evidence to prove the exclusion, or ultimately any breach of contract cannot be enforced. They also have to adhere to strict procedural fairness, which takes time, or else City will simply move to have the matter dismissed on those grounds.

I also read elswhere that while CAS/Swiss courts take a dimmer view on "illegally" obtained evidence (such as the hacked emails), English courts tend to consider all evidence regardless of its source. 

 

[The Rising Sun]

Based on recent comments from Masters re the ongoing investigation and the inference within that things are fast reaching a conclusion I thought it might be a good idea to start a thread where comments re this issue could be posted as opposed to people adding such comments to other threads.


I found Masters comment really interesting and yes I may have misread but I am actually, at this point, not as concerned as I was previously.

There are three routes  the matter could go:

1) Independent Commission ( IC) 

2) Agreed Settlement 

3) No further action.

 1)To progress the matter to an IC the PL disciplinary team will have to be  confident that they can prove matters to a standard  of the “balance of probability” 

Ah you might say the owners self reported matters but that is the first unknown in that we haven’t a clue what has been reported. Irrespective as Masters acknowledges it’s complicated and my guess if for no other reason is that RA and previous directors/ officials can not be compelled to engage with the investigation meaning that it’s highly unlikely that any of those individuals will have been interviewed, if they have they almost certainly would have not added too much but unless they had access specifically to RA and his own accounts and records without context it would be very difficult to reach a balanced conclusion.

2) If I were a betting man this would be the outcome. What this would mean is that  PL and Chelsea would reach the stage where indiscretions would appear to have happened but the PL might not be confident enough to test their evidence in front of IC. 
On the flip Chelsea will possibly/ probably be content to acknowledge that matters were not as they should be but again if a set of sanctions can be agreed between the two parties then whilst the evidence isn’t tested a panel will be required to rubber stamp the details of the settlement.

Bear in mind that there is still circa £100 million in reserve. A sum that was withheld from the proceeds of sale and to be honest keeping it won’t be off any benefit to the owners or the PL as that £100million  will simply be moved to the frozen account in which the proceeds of sale held. Imagine what that sum could do either as a payment to PL clubs “ impacted “ during 2012-219 or to the wider football community 

Another reason I think / hope this will be the route is that it will  set a precedent which almost certainly would be there prior to resolution of the city case and should that not go well for city without mitigation who knows what any IC would level.

So  I would be content a fine of £50-£100 million ( unprecedented) not sure at all about a points deduction maybe 6 points most of which would be suspended and a two window embargo. It’s time that some on here acknowledge that there was an issue uncovered and self reported and it’s one of the issues that the new owners have had to try and navigate and above all prepare the club should there be draconian sanctions 

3) Would be the ideal but I suspect unlikely

Thoughts 

Im pretty sure some of that £100 million was used to pay a fine to EUFA?

 

[The Rising Sun]

If I were to guess, with us self reporting and the indiscretions being under a previous regime (that was unlawfully forced into selling the club in the first place) It’ll be a X figure fine and a suspended points deduction.
 

Which will lay the foundations for the City punishment to be a larger fine and a higher points deduction that they can then reduce on appeal. 
 

It’s all a show for the cameras and shouldn’t even be an issue for any club if it wasn’t for the absurdly communist idea of FFP/PSR 

A system that protects wealthy clubs ...communism ?

 

[The Rising Sun]

For me the reason that City “ got off lightly “ was more to with the negligence and incompetence of UEFA as opposed to a technicality.

UEFA were so convinced they had city bang to rights that  clearly wasn’t so , simply because thinking something and proving even on that balance of probabilities isn’t one and the same thing and that’s something worth bearing in mind when our case proceeds .

City failed to engage with UEFA and indeed were fined for their lack of engagement but CAS because of constraints within Swiss Law weren’t able to draw conclusions for Cities belligerent behaviour. That won’t wash with the PL case simply because in English law in certain circumstances conclusions can be drawn from silence/ lack of engagement.

It’s a bit of misconception to believe that matters aren’t time barred when it comes to Cities PL case and come to that our case.

Irrespective of time limits not being mentioned any disciplinary matter has to be handled in accordance with English Law and here all matters will be guided by the Limitations Act 1980 there it  states :

An action founded on tort shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued.

There are exclusions for instance where it is proven that the matter came about due to fraud, concealment or failure to disclose then that  6 year limit won’t apply.

What if the action isn't founded tort?

Not that I know what a tort is .

 

[The Rising Sun]

Based on recent comments from Masters re the ongoing investigation and the inference within that things are fast reaching a conclusion I thought it might be a good idea to start a thread where comments re this issue could be posted as opposed to people adding such comments to other threads.


I found Masters comment really interesting and yes I may have misread but I am actually, at this point, not as concerned as I was previously.

There are three routes  the matter could go:

1) Independent Commission ( IC) 

2) Agreed Settlement 

3) No further action.

 1)To progress the matter to an IC the PL disciplinary team will have to be  confident that they can prove matters to a standard  of the “balance of probability” 

Ah you might say the owners self reported matters but that is the first unknown in that we haven’t a clue what has been reported. Irrespective as Masters acknowledges it’s complicated and my guess if for no other reason is that RA and previous directors/ officials can not be compelled to engage with the investigation meaning that it’s highly unlikely that any of those individuals will have been interviewed, if they have they almost certainly would have not added too much but unless they had access specifically to RA and his own accounts and records without context it would be very difficult to reach a balanced conclusion.

2) If I were a betting man this would be the outcome. What this would mean is that  PL and Chelsea would reach the stage where indiscretions would appear to have happened but the PL might not be confident enough to test their evidence in front of IC. 
On the flip Chelsea will possibly/ probably be content to acknowledge that matters were not as they should be but again if a set of sanctions can be agreed between the two parties then whilst the evidence isn’t tested a panel will be required to rubber stamp the details of the settlement.

Bear in mind that there is still circa £100 million in reserve. A sum that was withheld from the proceeds of sale and to be honest keeping it won’t be off any benefit to the owners or the PL as that £100million  will simply be moved to the frozen account in which the proceeds of sale held. Imagine what that sum could do either as a payment to PL clubs “ impacted “ during 2012-219 or to the wider football community 

Another reason I think / hope this will be the route is that it will  set a precedent which almost certainly would be there prior to resolution of the city case and should that not go well for city without mitigation who knows what any IC would level.

So  I would be content a fine of £50-£100 million ( unprecedented) not sure at all about a points deduction maybe 6 points most of which would be suspended and a two window embargo. It’s time that some on here acknowledge that there was an issue uncovered and self reported and it’s one of the issues that the new owners have had to try and navigate and above all prepare the club should there be draconian sanctions 

3) Would be the ideal but I suspect unlikely

Thoughts 

All I can say is that you have a far greater understanding of these matters than most of us I would think , and your explanations are very welcome.

Thanks