PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[halfcenturyup]

I'd love to see your sums on that

 

[Sale Moor Blue]

If ( and a big if ) we are found guilty then the repercussions will cost CFG billions in lost asset value and revenue. Just think the financial commitment to the new stand will be small in consideration in the big picture and the hotel is more linked to the opening of arena than the stadium

Agree it is a good sign of confidence though - although I’m sure it would have gone ahead regardless of confidence.

Fucking Hell have a day off.

 

[WRicko]

A couple of things that keep getting raised that we should put the lid on once and for all.

Firstly, the word fraud isn't used in the allegations because this is a case of breach of contract. The contract between the PL and the club doesn't refer to fraud, so the allegations carefully (eventually) refer to the rules in the contract that were breached. The combination of rule breaches may effectively represent fraud but the absense of the word in the PL statement means nothing and implies nothing.

Secondly, there is no legal requirement, other than in a regulated industry, to report fraud to the authorities. The fact that the PL hasn't referred the club to the SFO, for example, means nothing and implies nothing.

The definition of fraud is

In law, fraud is intentional deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain, or to deprive a victim of a legal right.

They the premier league are in affect claiming we used intentional deception and misrepresentation of our financial position to get sporting advantage.

Even if you say it was only a breach of contract with the premier league the alleged breach of was done by deception and false representation of our financials and done for financial gain access to UEFA competition the ability to buy better players resulting in more money. I believe that Delany has used fraud in one headline though has not dared to do so on other occasions I think when legal and accounting experts some who post on here and Stephen have been on podcasts and talks sport they have used the word fraud. Simon Jordan may have even used the word in response to Stephen I know people on here have used the word and some I believe have argued the act of fiddling the books is fraud. Not sure there has to be a financial gain though you wouldn’t do it if there wasn’t.

You say they do not have to report it I find that hard to believe. Have you read every rule by the premier league FA etc?

However assuming they do not are the NCA s
SFO etc not capable reading the news or watching it for the past however many years ?wouldn’t rival clubs report us especially Liverpool. Even if you do not think it meets the definition of fraud surely it would if believable be criminal in some capacity or warrant further investigation by someone external.

The fact there is talk of striping titles comparable to when crimes have been committed in other countries tells you how serious this is. Heck if we have cheated on the scaled alleged and been able to spend the amount extra alleged how many better players extra titles have we won ? How close were we again to Liverpool that year ? How much more money would they have if they had won an extra premier league or two or some other trophies.

The allegations if proven would surely result in our owners not meeting the fit and proper test. How is that reported and who to ? And has it been ?

As I say I am confident nothing has been done that’s wrong the fact it’s so serious yet we have not seen the fall out that should have followed tells me no one pundit journalist who even half understand this club premier league fa SFO NCA etc thinks we have done anything wrong

 

[WRicko]

A couple of things that keep getting raised that we should put the lid on once and for all.

Firstly, the word fraud isn't used in the allegations because this is a case of breach of contract. The contract between the PL and the club doesn't refer to fraud, so the allegations carefully (eventually) refer to the rules in the contract that were breached. The combination of rule breaches may effectively represent fraud but the absense of the word in the PL statement means nothing and implies nothing.

Secondly, there is no legal requirement, other than in a regulated industry, to report fraud to the authorities. The fact that the PL hasn't referred the club to the SFO, for example, means nothing and implies nothing.

I re read your post and at first I thought you where say the word fraud was not used because it was not fraud but I see that you say the word fraud is not used because it’s about breach of contract but why have they chickened out of using the word fraud ?

Final point I should have made in the previous post

Why has it taken so long if they actually believe we have done what is alleged ?

 

[cheekybids]

This is really the only explanation, imo, why they are continuing. They started the investigation, found some things that needed explanation but the club didn't provide the proof to support the explanations because they aren't required by the PL rules, or by UK law so to do, it being information held externally. So what do the PL do? Finish the investigation without a proper conclusion, which is a terrible situation for a governing body? Or continue with the disciplinary process, incur huge legal fees, and then "lose" the case, which is a terrible situation for a governing body.

The club has stitched the PL up good and proper over this, I think. We really have some clever people running the club.

That’s my reading of it & the charges are spiteful punishment for not falling in line. The correct conclusion would have been we’ve exhausted all avenues open to us & there is no was nothing untoward found.

That’s a win fucking win & I can’t believe Masters didn’t consider it,

 

[cheekybids]

you are a legal man - are you telling me that PL would have proceeded the way they have even if they were advised their case wasn’t strong enough ?

Four years to build a case and they went ahead even if advised what they have is not strong enough ?

Legal advice is ignored all the time but it depends on what the desired outcome is. The risk to the premier league is financial & reputational. The cost is not an issue as it’s paid for by the members & it’s possible the reputational damage to Masters & the premier league was underestimated. In fact his reputation only seems to be damaged because of Everton & the unlikely event we’ll be found in breach. There was no question the premier league have acted badly for the first 12 months.

 

[Kamaro011]

The last few pages is being dominated by the usual suspect with very apt username.

FFS.

 

[halfcenturyup]

That’s my reading of it & the charges are spiteful punishment for not falling in line. The correct conclusion would have been we’ve exhausted all avenues open to us & there is no was nothing untoward found.

That’s a win fucking win & I can’t believe Masters didn’t consider it,

That may have made some sense, but can you imagine the fallout of the PL had said that.

They have made two mistakes in my book: first, opening the PL investigation at the same time as the UEFA investigation. They could have easily have waited until UEFA/CAS was finished before assessing if there was a case to answer at PL level; second, making the serious (and imho baseless, or at least unprovable) allegations against the club that they did last year. They could easily have submitted allegations to the IC that would carry a penalty (win for the PL) but did not effectively infer fraud.

Why would the PL do those two things? Pressure from the usual suspects is the obvious answer, which brings me back to the point that Masters is too weak to be leading the PL in the same way Platini was too weak to lead UEFA. Between the two of these arseholes, their incompetence has led us to where we are today.

 

[halfcenturyup]

The last few pages is being dominated by the usual suspect with very apt username.

FFS.

Yes, sorry. I will shut up now :)

 

[Chappie]

A couple of things that keep getting raised that we should put the lid on once and for all.

Firstly, the word fraud isn't used in the allegations because this is a case of breach of contract. The contract between the PL and the club doesn't refer to fraud, so the allegations carefully (eventually) refer to the rules in the contract that were breached. The combination of rule breaches may effectively represent fraud but the absense of the word in the PL statement means nothing and implies nothing.

Secondly, there is no legal requirement, other than in a regulated industry, to report fraud to the authorities. The fact that the PL hasn't referred the club to the SFO, for example, means nothing and implies nothing.

They may not use the word fraud,but that is what the allegations imply,however you wish to dress it up.
Bar the non compliance allegation, which of the allegations will not be considered a fraudulent action by the club if they are found to be true ?