Financial Fair Play (general thread)

[SirHarryHotspur]

2 things - 1) you said ‘beyond doubt’ which is very different to ‘comfortably satisfied’ in the ruling you are quoting. 2) the premier league has wider discretion than uefa and different burdens of proof. Indeed uefa are no longer able to investigate city’s alleged offences due to statute of limitations whereas the PL can go back as far as it likes.

Agree "beyond doubt" was the wrong phrase to use but the PL will still need to present a strong case to the commission.

 

[yankspurs]

Keeping the lawyers busy....

Forest lodge appeal against points deduction

Nottingham Forest lodge an appeal against their four-point deduction for breaching Premier League profit and sustainability rules, the club confirms.

www.bbc.co.uk

Deny it & add another 10 points simply for the audacity. They breached the rule out of their own sheer stupidity. Accepted the same offer 2 months later than one they rejected from a different club which would have had them in compliance. Idiots.

 

[elfy]

Yes criminal and civil law are on different levels but the commission will still need a degree of proof to find City guilty, a piece from the UEFA Man City CAS tribunal held under Swiss Law.

The panel is not comfortably satisfied that MCFC disguised equity funding from HHSM and/or ADUG as sponsorship contributions from Etihad.

But the PSR rules are exactly that, rules. They are the agreed terms all clubs must abide by to play in the Premier League.

They are not laws. There are no courts. The rules themselves explictly bar cases going to the CAS (which is where UEFA rules came unstuck). All matters are concluded by disciplinary panel and a seperate appeal panel. Decision of the appeal panel is final.

Yes, the rules and panels are set up to operate like a court - proof is 'balance of probabilities', panel must have held judicial positions previously. But, it is catagorically and fundamentally NOT a court, and there is no recourse to any court.

It's why 'precedents' from decades ago won't work. It is not a court. It is not a legal matter.

Clubs either broke the rules, or they didn't. That is what it comes down to.

 

[Misfit]

Might be easier to avoid all this nonsense by going the German licensing route where the books, and much else besides, are locked at and signed off on by the league before the season and if not you don't get a license.

No muss, no fuss, no endles whining and appeals and pleas for exceptions.

 

[JamieSpursCommunityUser]

Might be easier to avoid all this nonsense by going the German licensing route where the books, and much else besides, are locked at and signed off on by the league before the season and if not you don't get a license.

No muss, no fuss, no endles whining and appeals and pleas for exceptions.

I agree it 100% needs to be a pro-active and not retrospective.

That was the biggest mistake of FFP.

You want to sign a player you have to demonstrate you're within your PSR budget right now.

Or the player cannot be registered.

All clubs, players, managers, executives, and agents have to submit financial records and tax returns to the PL.

Any breaches or off book payments lead to suspension or ban by any parties involved.

 

[Misfit]

I agree it 100% needs to be a pro-active and not retrospective.

That was the biggest mistake of FFP.

You want to sign a player you have to demonstrate you're within your PSR budget right now.

Or the player cannot be registered.

All clubs, players, managers, executives, and agents have to submit financial records and tax returns to the PL.

Any breaches or off book payments lead to suspension or ban by any parties involved.

"pro-active and not retrospective". In a nutshell the entire problem with the process.

 

[Trix]

That's true but not sure Chelsea will be punished in the way that most people want to see.
We have a precedent with Spurs, points and cup ban overturned , fine was later increased to £1.5 million. If I am the Chelsea lawyers this is the precedent I would use for improper dealings by previous owners.

As punishment for financial irregularities committed under the club's previous owners during the 1980s, they were fined £600,000 and were docked 12 league points as well as being banned from the 1994-95 FA Cup.

I see what you are trying to say but it's not the same thing. For a start it's two completely different governing bodies with different rules and regulations.

It's like me going to court and arguing it's ok to do xyz in England now because it was totally ok to do so in France a hundred years ago, despite the laws being completely different.

 

[SirHarryHotspur]

But the PSR rules are exactly that, rules. They are the agreed terms all clubs must abide by to play in the Premier League.

They are not laws. There are no courts. The rules themselves explictly bar cases going to the CAS (which is where UEFA rules came unstuck). All matters are concluded by disciplinary panel and a seperate appeal panel. Decision of the appeal panel is final.

Yes, the rules and panels are set up to operate like a court - proof is 'balance of probabilities', panel must have held judicial positions previously. But, it is catagorically and fundamentally NOT a court, and there is no recourse to any court.

It's why 'precedents' from decades ago won't work. It is not a court. It is not a legal matter.

Clubs either broke the rules, or they didn't. That is what it comes down to.

Commissions, tribunals , CAS may not be actual courts of law but they still follow similar procedures where those accused of breaking rules by UEFA or PL are allowed to defend themselves and produce evidence of their own as Man City did at CAS.
Entry from CAS website
R45 Law Applicable to the Merits
The Panel shall decide the dispute according to the rules of law chosen by the parties or, in the absence of such a choice, according to Swiss law.
In the case of PL v club the PL has it's own commissions and doesn't use CAS but a lot of world sport does and I expect somewhere in the PL Independent Commissions guidance you will find something like the above but using English Law
In both Everton and Forest cases the commissions did refer to previous cases like EFL v Sheffield Weds and EFL v Birmingham City in explaining how they come to their desicions so looks like they do refer to other cases and desicions.
In the Everton case the following is an entry in the Commission report "The Premier League cited the authority of Bolton v The Law Society [1994] 1 WLR 512." (not the football club Bolton) , so it appears that previous legal matters are referred to.

 

[SirHarryHotspur]

I see what you are trying to say but it's not the same thing. For a start it's two completely different governing bodies with different rules and regulations.

It's like me going to court and arguing it's ok to do xyz in England now because it was totally ok to do so in France a hundred years ago, despite the laws being completely different.

Wouldn't be surprised if it just ends up with a fine for Chelsea the same as UEFA have done, Boehly & co will also point to the fact that for years Chelsea's accounts have been audited by KPMG without them finding any suspicious payments..

Seems that the discrepancies were discovered before the takeover by Boehly yet they still went ahead with the purchase surely they must have had secret discussions with the PL & UEFA about it.

Chelsea FC’s ownership group completed its purchase of the club on 30 May 2022. During a thorough due diligence process prior to completion of the purchase, the ownership group became aware of potentially incomplete financial reporting concerning historical transactions during the club’s previous ownership. Immediately following the completion of the purchase, Chelsea self-reported these matters to UEFA.

 

[neilp]

Wouldn't be surprised if it just ends up with a fine for Chelsea the same as UEFA have done, Boehly & co will also point to the fact that for years Chelsea's accounts have been audited by KPMG without them finding any suspicious payments..

Yes they were audited by KPMG, but if payments were made from an unrelated company, they wouldn’t show in the accounts or audit, which is exactly what the suggestion is.

 

[SirHarryHotspur]

Yes they were audited by KPMG, but if payments were made from an unrelated company, they wouldn’t show in the accounts or audit, which is exactly what the suggestion is.

Yet whoever looked into the clubs financial accounts before the purchase on behalf of Boehly & co found the missing information . Would they spend billions on the club if they thought that they would be banished to the Championship. I see that £100 million was held back from the sale for “unforeseen liabilities" , sounds to me like heavy fines coming for Chelsea, UEFA have already taken 10 million euros.

 

[BehindEnemyLines]

I believe Chelsea are a PLC (albeit through a diverse corporate structure), which in essence is a legal entity in it's own right. Deemed "ownership" by whoever buys the shares in that company is irrelevent.....so I don't really see why chelsea fans and the press keep quoting "previous owners" as if that is relevant - it really shouldn't be (though the previous board could possibly be held personally liable).

It's like BP having an oil leak and the owner of all the BP shares selling them, and then the new owner saying "I'm not liable to the clean up as it was under the previous ownership".

 

[Monkey boy]

If Chelsea are really about to be in the sticky brown stuff then the tabloid newspapers don’t seem to be aware of it as they are linking them with every £50m player on the market and also Osimhen at £150m.

as others have said, I’ll believe it when I see it as we all thought Roman being exiled would be their downfall yet they went on and spent a billion quid. Also what happened to that 1.5b loan Roman gave them, how come nobody has looked at that from a FFP point of view?

 

[Albertbarich]

It's all such a mess.

These fans (and clubs) moaning about being punished and having to fight cartels comes across as thick as mince but they're never going to stop moaning.

And city , oh city they seemed to have figured away around it all and continue to blatantly cheat. Yes 115 charges I know but they have delayed and delayed that to the point where I think their legal team are so good I have zero faith that anything happens, at least in the next five years.

The trouble I have is when rich people and I mean super rich people want their own way they generally get it and for FFP to be truly effective it has to stop the Saudis, stop Abu Dhabi, Stop Qatar that has the French government backing them as they ruin their own league.

And whilst I'm sure there will be bumps eventually they will get their way.

Football is so far gone, so corrupt, so far away from the working class sport that it used to be I don't even get angry about it anymore. It's gone. Greedy businessman and states have taken the game and made sure only wealthy people can enjoy it. Even to watch it on television is ridiculous.

Sorry for the rant but just wanted to vent about the total apathy I feel about it all now whereas previously I'd be passionate.

It's just become a fight to the bottom to see who can make the most of sportswash the best as fans defend anything in the hope of seeing their team win.

 

[Trix]

Yet whoever looked into the clubs financial accounts before the purchase on behalf of Boehly & co found the missing information . Would they spend billions on the club if they thought that they would be banished to the Championship. I see that £100 million was held back from the sale for “unforeseen liabilities" , sounds to me like heavy fines coming for Chelsea, UEFA have already taken 10 million euros.

So you are now saying they did know prior to the purchase?

 

[SirHarryHotspur]

I believe Chelsea are a PLC (albeit through a diverse corporate structure), which in essence is a legal entity in it's own right. Deemed "ownership" by whoever buys the shares in that company is irrelevent.....so I don't really see why chelsea fans and the press keep quoting "previous owners" as if that is relevant - it really shouldn't be (though the previous board could possibly be held personally liable).

Chelsea FC Holdings Ltd is a PLC but a private limited company, not a public one with shares quoted on the stock market.
Problem with Chelsea is that it has taken someone other than the Premier League or UEFA to discover potential incomplete financial reporting within the club , that is supposed to be the job of the PL & UEFA to find things like that.
The fact that UEFA have not seen fit to ban Chelsea from Europe or impose anything other than a fine for these incomplete financials makes you wonder if some bargain has been struck.

 

[Trix]

Chelsea FC Holdings Ltd is a PLC but a private limited company, not a public one with shares quoted on the stock market.
Problem with Chelsea is that it has taken someone other than the Premier League or UEFA to discover potential incomplete financial reporting within the club , that is supposed to be the job of the PL & UEFA to find things like that.
The fact that UEFA have not seen fit to ban Chelsea from Europe or impose anything other than a fine for these incomplete financials makes you wonder if some bargain has been struck.

Why would UEFA ban them or impose any sanctions on them?

Same reason they haven't banned Everton and Forrest I expect, they aren't in any UEFA sanctioned competitions.

 

[SirHarryHotspur]

So you are now saying they did know prior to the purchase?

That's what the statement says on the Chelsea website , they found "potentially incomplete financial reporting" the £100 million held back comes from various sources.

Club statement on UEFA decision

Chelsea FC’s ownership group completed its purchase of the club on 30 May 2022. During a thorough due diligence process prior to completion of the purchase, the ownership group became aware of potentially incomplete financial reporting concerning historical transactions during the club’s...

www.chelseafc.com

Chelsea plan for financial investigation with £100m held back from sale to cover potential liabilities

Exclusive: Todd Boehly permitted to retain a slice of £2.5bn asking price when issues that occurred under Roman Abramovich emerged

www.telegraph.co.uk

 

[Trix]

That's what the statement says on the Chelsea website says, they found "potentially incomplete financial reporting" the £100 million held back comes from various sources.

Club statement on UEFA decision

Chelsea FC’s ownership group completed its purchase of the club on 30 May 2022. During a thorough due diligence process prior to completion of the purchase, the ownership group became aware of potentially incomplete financial reporting concerning historical transactions during the club’s...

www.chelseafc.com

Chelsea plan for financial investigation with £100m held back from sale to cover potential liabilities

Exclusive: Todd Boehly permitted to retain a slice of £2.5bn asking price when issues that occurred under Roman Abramovich emerged

www.telegraph.co.uk

Yes I knew that already. Point is earlier you were arguing nothing would happen because "it was the other guy guv" this shows they knew what they were buying and what the potential outcomes would/could be.

 

[superted4]

If Chelsea are really about to be in the sticky brown stuff then the tabloid newspapers don’t seem to be aware of it as they are linking them with every £50m player on the market and also Osimhen at £150m.

as others have said, I’ll believe it when I see it as we all thought Roman being exiled would be their downfall yet they went on and spent a billion quid. Also what happened to that 1.5b loan Roman gave them, how come nobody has looked at that from a FFP point of view?

Been asking that myself. Find it hard that other premier league bigwigs are letting it be swept under the carpet