The rules are there even if we were the only ones they choose to apply them to.What are the chances of some this being: "Bring us Etihad's accounts and any sponsor's which neither the club or the PL have any legal right to ask for... Outside of our own rulebook which we wrote ourselves"
...
"No? Failure to cooperate!"
Why don't they just have done with it "If your club name is Manchester City FC, you have no legal rights at all. Anything charges we bring are fact, you are guilty until proven innocent. Because this rule right here says so."
I don't think we will be so fortunate. When an investigation is under way, B.18 "Without prejudice to the League’s powers of inquiry under Rule W.1, each Club shall comply promptly and in full with any request for information made by the League" [my emphasis]
The power under W.1 is "The Board shall have power to inquire into any suspected or alleged breach of these Rules and for that purpose may require: W.1.1. any Manager, Match Official, Official or Player to appear before it to answer questions and/or provide information; and W.1.2. any such Person or any Club to produce documents."
Again very wide powers and therefore easy to breach if you resist, which we likely have (given the High Court process hearings).
Under W.15 "It shall be no answer to a request from the Board to disclose documents or information pursuant to Rule W.1 that such documents or information requested are confidential."
Taken together, that is a very broad power which unless City can show was unreasonable or, probably, impossible (ie the request was for documents not in our possession, control, or in existence) the likelihood is that charge will be proved regardless where we end up on the substantive stuff.
I dont disagree. There remains issues of mitigation that could be used to deflect that charge. The original emails were provided to CAS and only then accepted as evidence. It showed the der spiegel emails to be doctored to cause the worst possible outcome for City. The other interesting issue is time related in respect of how long businesses are required to keep documents. It is 6 years. Therefore requests for documents older than 6 years May no longer be available. They may have been legitimately destroyed for example. That is also not a failure to cooperate.It goes back to which documents were in effect ruled on.I would the whole set of emails un redacted would be a given
My point was and still is if the PL had a whole list of documents they wanted and the process via arbitration rubber stamped that request then if they exist city would be play with fire if they don’t offer them up even if they don’t think they are relevant
Make that beauty into a two stick Flag [emoji7]Cross of St Marks looked a bit Nazi Germany haha. How's this?
View attachment 69187
SWP - Baby just give it upI must be getting slow in my old age, I’ve only just worked out why everyone’s talking about KC’s when I’d never heard of the term before in my life before this whole carry on. QC definitely sounds better.
I guess there may be a difference between not being illegal and not being compliant with FFP?One thing that stood out from that Daily Fail article:
"There is no indication that 'Project Longbow' is illegal."
Thanks.The PL rules are subject to the Limitation Act. In short, 6 years from cause of action unless the PL prove dishonest concealment such that the PL could never have known until the leaks
Of course. I'm just viewing that particular issue with regards to allegations of accounting fraud and how it may not come under that particular umbrella.I guess there may be a difference between not being illegal and not being compliant with FFP?
Thanks. These have been a brilliant series of posts from clearly a professional in the field. They’ve complemented other posters asking (to a layman) quite deep and difficult questions - unless you are a practicing lawyer or an expert in various regulations/complex accounting - and and in my mind significantly clarified some key issues.Sorry for all the replies in one go. With the time zone difference and waiting until I finish my working day it means most other posters are asleep. Also takes me a while to read everything and catch up… you lot are posting while I am asleep and then working…
I raised this issue before.I guess there may be a difference between not being illegal and not being compliant with FFP?
Probably more a Colin or Stefan question, but from a legal perspective the idea of dishonestly providing improper accounts would essentially make them not legal. The idea of good faith is an honest belief of the preparers and those who sign them off that they are true and accurate.Can someone with more expertise than me explain the difference between doing something illegal, which I don't believe City have done, and something being done in 'good faith'? Seems like that is going to be very tricky for either side to demonstrate to me? For example, the last few pages of Fordham discussion indicate to me that City acted legally, but perhaps not in 'good faith' by shifting costs to another company. Am I wrong?
Can someone with more expertise than me explain the difference between doing something illegal, which I don't believe City have done, and something being done in 'good faith'? Seems like that is going to be very tricky for either side to demonstrate to me? For example, the last few pages of Fordham discussion indicate to me that City acted legally, but perhaps not in 'good faith' by shifting costs to another company. Am I wrong?
I believe this is what Daniel Levy has been busy doing since last Friday when Pep called him out!I dont disagree. There remains issues of mitigation that could be used to deflect that charge. The original emails were provided to CAS and only then accepted as evidence. It showed the der spiegel emails to be doctored to cause the worst possible outcome for City. The other interesting issue is time related in respect of how long businesses are required to keep documents. It is 6 years. Therefore requests for documents older than 6 years May no longer be available. They may have been legitimately destroyed for example. That is also not a failure to cooperate.
The difference between unlawful and illegal ,unlawful is against the rules of the the land ,illegal is a poorly bird ;+)Can someone with more expertise than me explain the difference between doing something illegal, which I don't believe City have done, and something being done in 'good faith'? Seems like that is going to be very tricky for either side to demonstrate to me? For example, the last few pages of Fordham discussion indicate to me that City acted legally, but perhaps not in 'good faith' by shifting costs to another company. Am I wrong?
I'm sure there are plenty of intelligent posters on both those forums. The trouble is that when it comes to stuff like this, the relevant threads on both sites will attract all the brain dead dickheads who end up drowning everybody else out!Thanks. These have been a brilliant series of posts from clearly a professional in the field. They’ve complemented other posters asking (to a layman) quite deep and difficult questions - unless you are a practicing lawyer or an expert in various regulations/complex accounting - and and in my mind significantly clarified some key issues.
This is a great forum with some really high quality posters - not what I see on Red Cafe or RAWK if I have a mooch on there ! Most of the people who give us fans shit on this stuff haven’t a clue what they’re talking about, so it really helps to slap them down if we can get at least some understanding.
FFS - Just go to asda and be done!Is this still going on?
Let me summarise for the hard of caring. You said "Football is big in profile and reaches many parts of society but it is tiny in financial terms. Financially City is about the same size as a big Tesco branch."
The other guy said: "Valued at roughly 3 billion with the Silver Lake sale, wasn’t it? That’s one bougie Tesco’s branch!"
Yours was a good point in principle. The response was presumably made in jest and, at worst, misunderstood the rather vague term "size".
There are metrics where the size of MCFC is bigger than a Tesco store, there are metrics where it is smaller. Can we just leave it at that. Enough already.
Is this an old or a recent article?One thing that stood out from that Daily Fail article:
"There is no indication that 'Project Longbow' is illegal."
Anything dishonest per statutory accounts is an offence. But mistakes are not necessarily dishonest. Bad faith in providing information to the PL is not illegal but it would be a breach of the PL rules. Bad faith leading to dishonesty and/or false accounting is an offence and serious. Split PL Rules and statutory accounts. Split dishonesty from inadvertent mistakes and from negligent auditing. And around the edges are lots of allegations and grey. I could go on but you get the idea.Probably more a Colin or Stefan question, but from a legal perspective the idea of dishonestly providing improper accounts would essentially make them not legal. The idea of good faith is an honest belief of the preparers and those who sign them off that they are true and accurate.
If all this extra money that has been diverted via Etihad, Al Jazzera and Fordham is accounted for and the correct tax paid by all parties I imagine there is nothing illegal by law. I would imagine if the club were inflating income City could have been paying too much tax.
What we are accused of her is doing things not in the spirit of the rule book. The FFP rules in 2009 were not in play yet but we’re coming down the track. Could the club argue that as these were new rules there are interpretations of what a club could and couldn’t do to be in line for when FFP was introduced.