This is where I always get extra twitchy. Who decides what the level of cogency is, cos I’ve never seen anything to dissuade me from the notion that the Tribunal will be able to make that ‘level’ be whatever they want it to be (within reason)?The PL allegations aren't for fraud in a criminal context, the allegations are for breaches of contract that effectively represent fraudulent behaviour. Civil law claims.
That said, the seriousness of the claims raise the level of cogency required in the evidence presented. But balance of probabilities is the standard of proof in this civil claim and there is nothing the club can do about it but suck it up and defend themselves.
If you are confused about the difference between civil and criminal cases and the standards of proof, think O J Simpson.
I might be wrong but this is a civil case and therefore SOL does apply even if fraud is alleged ?Following Lassel's point that Fordham was disclosed as a related party in the club's accounts, I spent some time digging to corroborate.
Unfortunately, there is no mention of Fordham; however, the FY13 accounts contain the following disclosure, which I'll paraphrase:
"In FY23 the club entered into transactions with group subsidiary, City Football Marketing Limited, for the sale of intangible assets of £11.6m, and with group subsidiary, City Football Group Limited, for the sale of intangible assets of £10.6m."
This is quite clearly disclosed in the Related Party Transactions note (note 24) and presumably relates to the image rights sale.
As I understand from the lawyers on here, a central tenet of the case is that City has acted fraudulently and that entitles the PL to broaden the case beyond the six year statute of limitations in the laws of England and Wales.
My contention, therefore, is that the club has not acted fraudulently and has disclosed the sale (or, rather, sales, as appears) in the relevant note of its audited accounts.
Unless I'm missing something, which is very possible as my expertise lies in finance rather than law, I'm struggling to see how the PL can even allege fraud, never mind prove it.
Any comments are welcome.
I might be wrong but this is a civil case and therefore SOL does apply even if fraud is alleged ?
This is where I always get extra twitchy. Who decides what the level of cogency is, cos I’ve never seen anything to dissuade me from the notion that the Tribunal will be able to make that ‘level’ be whatever they want it to be (within reason)?
Good man, that makes me feel a little better!I think questions like that are well-established in law. It's up to our counsel to make sure the law is applied properly.
Scouse ****. He can fuck off with his fake concern.View attachment 114931View attachment 114932
The Greater Manchester Mayor has addressed the accusations hanging over the club after being a vocal critic of the Premier League's handling of cases against Everton.
Andy Burnham has said he will support Manchester City in receiving 'fair and consistent treatment' amid the club's ongoing case with the Premier League.
Asked if he would support City in a similar manner if he thought the Blues were harshly treated, he told the Manchester Evening News: "So obviously it's not all in the public domain. But absolutely I will support Manchester City in securing fair and consistent treatment, and transparent treatment.
"I think that's the issue, that the Premier League need to reassure everybody on, that it's going to be done in a fair way, in a consistent way.
"And as I say, we don't know yet because there's not much in the public domain, but obviously I will absolutely represent both Manchester clubs, both Premier League clubs, as best I can, when they need my support. Obviously on the basis of, you know, challenging where things have been done unfairly or wrongly, that's what I will do."
Mr Burnham said in February that the Premier League had 'proved, in my view, that they can't properly regulate football through the way it's treated Everton Football Club.'
"We need a strong, independent statutory regulator for football, learning from all of the wrong things that have been done over recent weeks."
In a separate interview last month he said: "“I don’t think that the promoter of a product can also be the regulator of a product, particularly given the amount of money that is circulating in the game." Adding: "The regulator should be the regulator and nothing else."
The Premier League said it was unable to comment on ongoing disciplinary proceedings. In responses to two letters from Mr Burnham regarding Everton’s treatment, the organisation strongly refuted any suggestion cases had been mishandled.
The league also pointed out that the Secretary of State for Culture Media and Sport Lucy Frazer had suggested that cases such as Everton’s would remain a matter for leagues and would not fall into the realm of an independent regulator.
https://www.manchestereveningnews.c...ws/andy-burnhams-vow-over-manchester-29022074
Why are you giving this guy oxygen.So in a nutshell, in your opinion, we've done some of what the PL have alleged and they have substantive proof to support it.
@manimanc getting some long overdue credit.You've only got to look at Nicola Sturgeon's husband's re-arrest, Angela Rayner's police investigation, & now Labour writing to Lancashire police about Mark Menzies in a tit for tat move against the Tories for Currygate & Rayner, to realise the authorities would have dropped on City like a ton of bricks if any of these breaches were a millimetre above total, utter pedantic bullshit.
It beggars belief that some City fans fail to consider this most fundamental of points.
Look at the hatred & vitriol we've faced from within football & the media. Are we seriously suggesting the authorities aren't aware of the Der Spiegel leaks?
Wouldn't the Red Top Mafia & Spuds not have sent every bit of evidence they had to the authorities if it showed unlawful/illegal criminality in respect to City?
Once I stood back & considered what you've brilliantly outlined, I became totally relaxed about our situation.
The amount of money being spoken about in connection to Sturgeon's husband, Currygate, Angela Rayner & Mark Menzies situations don't even accumulate to anywhere near £1,000.000.
If they've had their collars felt for that lot, surely City would have had our collars ripped off & shoved up our arses, with accusations of 15 years of sustained fraud, totalling hundreds of millions of pounds, involving brown, Middle Eastern terrorists?
All City fans need to keep your take on our situation uppermost in their minds.
OK, you didn't take me up on the DM offer, so a few points to consider:
Mancini was never charged by UEFA and so was never discussed at CAS.
Neither was Fordham, although it was known to UEFA as part of the 2014 settlement.
It can be proven that an AJ contract was signed by Mancini, but without external verification, it can't be proven if and how the contract was fulfilled.
There was no FFP at the time Mancini was at the club. His termination settlement fell in the first three-year PL FFP assessment period, but that was negotiated extra-contract presumably.
There was also no requirement at the time to report all manager remuneration to the PL. Have a look at rules P7 and P8 in the earlier handbooks.
Fordham wasn't a related party as defined by accounting standards, the PL APT rules didn't come in until much later
On Fordham, it doesn't appear that the revenue from either of the IP sales in 2013 is an issue. Firstly, because it's equivalent to Chelsea's hotel sale which isn't an issue, apparently. Secondly, because they aren't referred to in the list of referred allegations (although they may be included in "revenue", which I doubt). And thirdly, because the referred allegations *do* refer to the under-reporting of player remuneration 2010/11-2015/16.
All the above doesn't take into account that the PL will have to prove knowing concealment to even look at these issues as they are both time limited otherwise. No chance, imo.
Finally, what's not in the club's books and records is, imo, *the* point to everything: the number of allegations, the allegations over non-cooperation and acting in bad faith and recent changes to PL rules. It is entirely possible the PL considers the club hasn't complied with its requests while the club considers it has complied with all legal requests from the PL.
That's enough for now.