PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Wardley Blue]

Bless you.

If I said people giving evidence in English I didn’t mean to but the likelihood is that will be the case.But it’s a fact that the panel almost certainly will have English as their first language.

UEFA are governed by Swiss Law the PL arent. Also it’s worth noting that CAS carried out an arbitration function under Swiss Law.

The Swiss law and English law had nothing to do with time barring that was a UEFA issue no such issue exists in the PL rulebook.

The Premier league FFP rules started in 2013. Surely we can not be guilty of anything earlier because these rules did not exist then. So time barring shouldn't come into the conversation regarding anything prior to 2013.

 

[Chris in London]

Hope the missus is ok. Agree with all your posts generally.

Personally, I don’t read much into the Note 4 point. The clubs audited financial statements are bound to match in whichever versions/supplemental notes are given to the PL and UEFA (although reading CAS it does seem that the information given pursuant to Article 47 was not just the stat accounts).

I wouldn’t hold out too much hope on appeal on point of law. Firstly, the points of law on dishonesty are settled - this is going to be fact and evidence heavy in any findings (as was CAS albeit on far less evidence than here). Second, s.69(1) doesn’t seem to apply to PL arbitration. View attachment 71723

On the appeal point, as I understand it there is a right of appeal from the independent panel that will decide the case to an independent appeal board. That is an appeal either on the merits, on a point of law or against sentence (as I read rule W62).

The next avenue of challenge (I deliberately refrain from using the word 'appeal' in this context) is via arbitration - rule X3. As I read that, it basically limits challenges to an Appeal Board's decision to points of law (including a challenge that the decision below is Wednesbury unreasonable).

It is from that arbitration that there can be no further appeal on a point of law as rule X37 makes clear. (Perversely, the rule then goes on to talk about a challenge to the arbitration award, but presumably rule X37 would be its defence to an appeal under the Arbitration Act.)

So, in layman's terms, there is a right of appeal against the decision, and there is a further 'appeal' on a point of law, but no appeal beyond that. Do you agree with that?

 

[Johnny Mars Bar]

By all accounts, that's precisely what we did :)

Good. I hope we did. Treble it.

 

[WRicko]

There isn’t any income tax on individuals in the UAE . But re read my previous comments on this as I believe it was an company registered in Italy that invoiced and almost certainly accounted for the money under the Italian tax regime

Well how was he paid for his job at city ?

 

[Leech]

How can it be that only one person on the panel needs a legal qualification?

Especially so, when the panel is being picked on behalf of the Premier League.

That certainly stinks.

Does the method for selecting the panel members not follow the same process as for when Newcastle United were intending to challenge the Premier League's blocking of their takeover i.e. one panel member is chosen by the Premier League, one is chosen by the club, then the final member (also the chair) is mutually agreed between both parties?

 

[chesterbells]

If you look at the vast bulk of my postings on this issue I have not really gone into the sponsorship issue because quite honestly I don’t know nor , in my opinion is the CAS ruling quite as clear cut as some feel.
I fell a little more informed when it comes to remuneration and indeed not assisting but sorry I just don’t subscribe to any claims re Xenophobia

Have you ever posted on any other thread? Genuine apologies if you’ve already explained your pattern of posting on here previously.

 

[Stoned Rose]

Regarding the alleged Mancini contracts, were the hacked emails ever shown? I can only find:-

"According to Der Spiegel, citing documents the Guardian has not seen or been able to verify, City executives agreed a deal whereby the holding company that controlled City, the Abu Dhabi United Group, would circulate funds to Al Jazira which would then be paid back to Mancini via an offshore company in Mauritius named Sparkleglow Holdings."

from a Guardian article.

Sparkleglow Holdings sounds like a Fall b-side.

 

[slbsn]

On the appeal point, as I understand it there is a right of appeal from the independent panel that will decide the case to an independent appeal board. That is an appeal either on the merits, on a point of law or against sentence (as I read rule W62).

The next avenue of challenge (I deliberately refrain from using the word 'appeal' in this context) is via arbitration - rule X3. As I read that, it basically limits challenges to an Appeal Board's decision to points of law (including a challenge that the decision below is Wednesbury unreasonable).

It is from that arbitration that there can be no further appeal on a point of law as rule X37 makes clear. (Perversely, the rule then goes on to talk about a challenge to the arbitration award, but presumably rule X37 would be its defence to an appeal under the Arbitration Act.)

So, in layman's terms, there is a right of appeal against the decision, and there is a further 'appeal' on a point of law, but no appeal beyond that. Do you agree with that?

Yes that is how I read the Rules except the arbitration can only consider a "perverse interpretation of the law" (X.4.4.) which is, I think, more than a mere error on a point of law. So, presumably we agree, all of X.4 make getting to arbitration unlikely.



So really, I think, we are talking about an in-house appeal under W62 as you suggest.



The point I was focussing on in the original post was the idea that there is a route into the English Courts to challenge on a point of law. That doesn't seem to exist in any scenario.

 

[BeerIsTheBest]

How can it be that only one person on the panel needs a legal qualification?

Especially so, when the panel is being picked on behalf of the Premier League.

That certainly stinks.

Tolm
You were bullish a while back with your insight that the club is insistent that 95 per cent of the shit thrown at the wall is in triplicate and the majority of it will be dismissed on the first day. Given your comment above regarding the constitution of the panel do you know if the club remains as positive.

 

[Keeper!]

Tolm
You were bullish a while back with your insight that the club is insistent that 95 per cent of the shit thrown at the wall is in triplicate and the majority of it will be dismissed on the first day. Given your comment above regarding the constitution of the panel do you know if the club remains as positive.

"Irrefutable Evidence"

Why would the clubs position change?

 

[Keeper!]

Why are you so interested in us?

You're putting a lot of posts in here, i haven't read all of them but you obviously have an unhealthy interest in city.

Do you know chelsea are playing?

I just don't get it unless you're doing it to take the piss and have a dig

Follow the money.

A club that has a dubious ownership and a very previous dubious owner.

It would make a very interesting investigation to find where Roman's money came from and for that matter Boehly's.

The way Boehly spends money makes me think it's very dirty.

 

[Chris in London]

Bless you.

If I said people giving evidence in English I didn’t mean to but the likelihood is that will be the case.But it’s a fact that the panel almost certainly will have English as their first language.

UEFA are governed by Swiss Law the PL arent. Also it’s worth noting that CAS carried out an arbitration function under Swiss Law.

The Swiss law and English law had nothing to do with time barring that was a UEFA issue no such issue exists in the PL rulebook.

Time barring does exist in English law, though, and membership of the PL is essentially a contract between MCFC and the PL, which is governed by English law.

The way PL might avoid the time-barred issue for the pre2017 charges is by alleging that there has been deliberate concealment by MCFC. That is in essence an allegation of fraud. Which is precisely what they are alleging. Now we wait to see what evidence they have to justify such a serious charge.

This has been done to death in the thread already.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Whatever we paid Mancini, double it.

What that man did for my football club you just can’t put a price on.

He needs a statue as much as any of the players.

Fuck the league and this financial witch hunt.

:)

A statue of Mancini giving Ferguson the old yappity yap would be classic shithousery. It was an iconic moment in the club's transformation. Will never happen of course, but it wouldn't just be Ferguson and United fans who would get their knickers in a twist about it.

 

[halfcenturyup]

On the appeal point, as I understand it there is a right of appeal from the independent panel that will decide the case to an independent appeal board. That is an appeal either on the merits, on a point of law or against sentence (as I read rule W62).

The next avenue of challenge (I deliberately refrain from using the word 'appeal' in this context) is via arbitration - rule X3. As I read that, it basically limits challenges to an Appeal Board's decision to points of law (including a challenge that the decision below is Wednesbury unreasonable).

It is from that arbitration that there can be no further appeal on a point of law as rule X37 makes clear. (Perversely, the rule then goes on to talk about a challenge to the arbitration award, but presumably rule X37 would be its defence to an appeal under the Arbitration Act.)

So, in layman's terms, there is a right of appeal against the decision, and there is a further 'appeal' on a point of law, but no appeal beyond that. Do you agree with that?

Can we take this to the extreme for the moment, because I am having a problem with how this process can be under English law, but not (effectively) be subject to it.

What happens if the panel and all the "independent" appeals within the PL find in favour of the PL on what are assumed to be the most serious charges, and criminal cases with the SFO and HMRC follow. The club, or what is left of it, wins the court cases. Presumably, they can sue the PL to heaven and back?

 

[Chris in London]

Can we take this to the extreme for the moment, because I am having a problem with how this process can be under English law, but not (effectively) be subject to it.

What happens if the panel and all the "independent" appeals within the PL find in favour of the PL on what are assumed to be the most serious charges, and criminal cases with the SFO and HMRC follow. The club, or what is left of it, wins the court cases. Presumably, they can sue the PL to heaven and back?

No.

It would not be surprising to hear of other, formal investigations being launched IF the PL proceedings against MCFC succeeded. However any prosecutions would have to be based on admissible evidence that was capable of being believed by a jury. The decision of a PL disciplinary panel has, in itself, no evidential value in actual court proceedings. So there might be an investigation but it would go no further than that.

What is said during the PL proceedings - ie the evidence given - might give rise to proceedings if sufficiently incendiary, but that is incredibly unlikely to happen. Fundamentally, in my view, prosecutions from HMRC and SFO are extremely unlikely because they would fail.

I'm not being unfriendly, but I'm not answering any more questions about possible prosecutions because the chances of that actually happening are diddly squat.

 

[halfcenturyup]

No.

It would not be surprising to hear of other, formal investigations being launched IF the PL proceedings against MCFC succeeded. However any prosecutions would have to be based on admissible evidence that was capable of being believed by a jury. The decision of a PL disciplinary panel has, in itself, no evidential value in actual court proceedings. So there might be an investigation but it would go no further than that.

What is said during the PL proceedings - ie the evidence given - might give rise to proceedings if sufficiently incendiary, but that is incredibly unlikely to happen. Fundamentally, in my view, prosecutions from HMRC and SFO are extremely unlikely because they would fail.

I'm not being unfriendly, but I'm not answering any more questions about possible prosecutions because the chances of that actually happening are diddly squat.

Fair enough, I don't blame you.

But that was rather my point. If HMRC and SFO cases would likely fail under English law, then how could they have succeeded under an arbitration process under English law on, presumably, the same charges, with a different level of evidence. It just confuses me. I am no lawyer as you have noticed.

No need to answer. It's been a good football day, let's enjoy it :)

 

[I'm Blue]

Time barring does exist in English law, though, and membership of the PL is essentially a contract between MCFC and the PL, which is governed by English law.

The way PL might avoid the time-barred issue for the pre2017 charges is by alleging that there has been deliberate concealment by MCFC. That is in essence an allegation of fraud. Which is precisely what they are alleging. Now we wait to see what evidence they have to justify such a serious charge.

This has been done to death in the thread already.

Don’t you only need to keep your accounting records for 6 years?
Which is probably why the premier league have gone back further on the hope we no longer have the proof to clear our name.
Which we have from the sounds of it.
Not sure what happens if any business gets investigated over accounting irregularities from 6+ years ago, if they do at all.
How are you supposed to produce documents that you’re no longer required to keep?
Is there not some sort of law with regards this?

 

[Blue_Lightsaber]

One can wonder if geopolitical issues are also involved here:

 

[halfcenturyup]

One can wonder if geopolitical issues are also involved here:

Not even looking at YouTube videos on geopolitics unless I know more about they guy making them. Help me out?

 

[WRicko]

No.

It would not be surprising to hear of other, formal investigations being launched IF the PL proceedings against MCFC succeeded. However any prosecutions would have to be based on admissible evidence that was capable of being believed by a jury. The decision of a PL disciplinary panel has, in itself, no evidential value in actual court proceedings. So there might be an investigation but it would go no further than that.

What is said during the PL proceedings - ie the evidence given - might give rise to proceedings if sufficiently incendiary, but that is incredibly unlikely to happen. Fundamentally, in my view, prosecutions from HMRC and SFO are extremely unlikely because they would fail.

I'm not being unfriendly, but I'm not answering any more questions about possible prosecutions because the chances of that actually happening are diddly squat.

I get that we carnt keep going round in circles about appeals and perhaps best to stay away from worst case scenarios but if you don’t mind answering Why would HMRC SFO likely fail ? Don’t have to answer.