The BBC this morning revealed that it had obtained a copy of the letter sent to the Premier League by Cardiff City which claims that Palace, in particular, Iain Moody, obtained their team line-up through unfair means prior to Palace's 3-0 victory at the Cardiff City Stadium. Resident FYP lawyer Andy Street gives his expert view on the situation.

The claims include the suggestion that Palace's sporting director attempted to obtain the team sheet by phoning the Cardiff City performance analyst - who has subsequently been sacked by the club - although he was unsuccessful in his endeavours.

In an even more bizarre twist, Cardiff have claimed that after Moody had discovered the line-up, he mistakenly sent a text message to former Palace boss Dougie Freedman with the information; before Freedman alerted his friend Ole Gunnar Solskjaer about the leak. The BBC explained that the document sent to the Premier League notes that Cardiff midfielder Aron Gunnarsson is named as the source of the leak; something which the player and his agent both have denied. 

We asked our resident lawyer, Andy Street to give us his view on the situation, and he believes there is nothing for Palace fans to worry about.

"As all Palace fans will now be aware, Cardiff’s complaint to the Premier League is made on the basis of its allegation that Iain Moody obtained information relating to the Bluebirds’ starting line-up for the match at the Cardiff City Stadium. Cardiff’s complaint alleges breaches of three of the Premier League’s regulations, as contained in its 2013-2014 Handbook. 

The first of those, Rule B.15, imposes an obligation upon Premier League clubs to behave towards one another and towards the League in “good faith”. This provision of the Premier League’s regulations is drafted widely in an attempt to impose a uniform standard of behaviour upon Clubs, not only in their interactions between one another, but also with the League. The second breach alleged by Cardiff arises from Rule B.16. This Rule precludes Premier League clubs from unfairly “criticising, belittling or discrediting one another or the [Premier] League”. This regulation is also drafted in a fairly broad and vague manner with no suggestion as to the level of criticism, disparagement or belittlement required to breach the regulation.

The third alleged breach, of Rule B.17, relates to the disclosure or use of confidential information relating to another club or the Premier League. The BBC report suggests that the most serious allegation is the purported breach of Rule B.17. However, it would be surprising were the Premier League’s board to find that text messages relating to a club’s likely line-up for an upcoming match amounted to confidential information for the purposes of this particular regulation. In fact, B17 specifically mentions business and financial information of clubs and the League, rather than anything relating to sporting matters. While the regulation is incredibly non-specific and could catch a variety of information, it seems a stretch to infer that it applies to the type of information involved in this dispute. This allegation also raises the question of whether, on Cardiff’s analysis that the team line-up amounted to confidential information for the purposes of B.17, the Bluebirds are themselves in breach by disclosing the line-up in the first place.

Rules B.15-B.17 are drafted fairly widely, it would seem, in order to catch various behaviours which relate to the relationship between the League and its member clubs. It seems unlikely that the League, when drawing up its Rules, would have envisaged these particular regulations applying to the type of situation in which Palace now find themselves. My reading of the Rules is that they were drafted to prevent clubs acting in a manner which is contrary to the interests of the League as a whole and to prevent the disclosure of confidential matters relating to the League which may be sensitive, such as EPPP and the previously proposed 39th game. It would seem strange if they were intended to apply to undefined actions which attempt to gain a competitive advantage over other clubs that are not expressly forbidden in the Rules, particularly given that certain types of grave behaviour which are to the detriment of other clubs (such as tapping up) are expressly prohibited.

In terms of the League’s investigatory powers, matters are first investigated by the Premier League Board. The Board can compel Palace or Iain Moody or Cardiff to offer up any documents or to provide further information as necessary, should they believe there may be a breach of the Rules. The Board has jurisdiction to decide whether there is a case to answer and to impose sanctions upon clubs where they are already prescribed in the Rules. So if, for example, a fine for a specific breach is provided for in the Premier League Handbook, the Board is able to impose such a sanction. The Board can also impose a fine of up to £25,000 or refer the matter onto a Premier League Disciplinary Commission. A Commission has a broad set of discretionary sanctions it may impose including points deductions, the replaying of matches or unlimited fines in the most extreme of circumstances.

That said, even in the unlikely event that the Premier League believes that Palace and Iain Moody’s alleged behaviour amounts to a breach of its Rules, the imposition of a points deduction would be completely unprecedented. The Premier League has only ever imposed a points deduction upon a Premier League club once, when Portsmouth appointed an administrator in 2009. The League’s rules impose a fixed points deduction as a penalty for clubs who enter administration, so this was a fairly straightforward decision for the League. In all other instances where the League has had discretion as to the sanctions imposed on clubs for breaches of its Rules, it has avoided deducting points. So even the highly controversial Tevez saga, which was a serious breach across many matches and which had a material impact on the final Premier League table, did not result in a points deduction. It seems unlikely that the Premier League would radically depart from that approach and impose draconian sanctions upon Palace, even if it was satisfied that a breach had occurred.

Moreover, given the extent of Palace’s rights to appeal of any decision of a Premier League Disciplinary Commission, it seems unlikely the League would risk taking such an approach. Under the Premier League’s Rules, clubs can appeal firstly to a Premier League Appeal Board if not satisfied with a decision, and can then enter an independent arbitration against the League itself. The West Ham situation, and the recent decision relating to Sunderland's Ki, proved that the League is reticent to intervene by affecting the outcome of individual matches or the final league table. I would expect that trend to be continued in this instance."