PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Chris in London said:
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.
Click to expand...
We need a 'Frequent Q&A' sticky at the top of this thread, visible on every page. Anyone who asks a question answered in it should get an immediate 7 day thread ban just to give the rest of us a break.
 
WRicko said:
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.
Click to expand...
We aren't going round in circles on appeals - the answer is above.

The second part of the question is highly complex and inappropriate for speculation here (at least it is for me). I will say (as I already have a few times) that HMRC is a red herring - there is nothing material here for HMRC that couldn't be addressed in correspondence.
 
projectriver said:
We aren't going round in circles on appeals - the answer is above.

The second part of the question is highly complex and inappropriate for speculation here (at least it is for me). I will say (as I already have a few times) that HMRC is a red herring - there is nothing material here for HMRC that couldn't be addressed in correspondence.
Click to expand...
Some of the most informed posters on here have discussed HMRC and fraud. To me the Mancini payments surely would require HMRC investigation and the other stuff fraud. But I am no expert.

I don’t see why you’re avoiding speculation unless it’s job related but you have an anonymous name and I wouldn’t be posting full stop if that was the case.

On appeals I get what your saying but Bare in mind we where cleared at CAS on most counts
If we believe the clubs It seems like pressure from rivals was enough to open an investigation and flimsy evidence can lead to to charges and charges could turn into a negative outcome.

Yet large and irrefutable evidence could clear us of a criminal convictions.

That makes no sense to me and I don’t know how that’s consistent with the law yet from what you’re saying we won’t have a chance of appeal. I would also add from what others are saying I think the Premier League are not treating Etihad in a way that is consistent with accounting standards
 
WRicko said:
Some of the most informed posters on here have discussed HMRC and fraud. To me the Mancini payments surely would require HMRC investigation and the other stuff fraud. But I am no expert.

I don’t see why you’re avoiding speculation unless it’s job related but you have an anonymous name and I wouldn’t be posting full stop if that was the case.

On appeals I get what your saying but Bare in mind we where cleared at CAS on most counts
If we believe the clubs It seems like pressure from rivals was enough to open an investigation and flimsy evidence can lead to to charges and charges could turn into a negative outcome.

Yet large and irrefutable evidence could clear us of a criminal convictions.

That makes no sense to me and I don’t know how that’s consistent with the law yet from what you’re saying we won’t have a chance of appeal. I would also add from what others are saying I think the Premier League are not treating Etihad in a way that is consistent with accounting standards
Click to expand...
People can discuss what they like - you don't need to understand why I won't speculate about SFO (which I have lots of direct experience of). As for the rest, I don't really follow your post and think the points have been clearly dealt with and are pretty settled.
 
This has probably been answered to death but I’m going to ask it anyway.

Let’s say the premier find the club guilty for breaking rules. In regards to FFP, the club is then investigated by HMRC/police whatever.

Do we not have a case to go after the actually ffp framework itself? Since this all started with unfair football rules that fundamentally stifled owner investment.

No FFP no problem.
 
wolviedinho said:
This has probably been answered to death but I’m going to ask it anyway.

Let’s say the premier find the club guilty for breaking rules. In regards to FFP, the club is then investigated by HMRC/police whatever.

Do we not have a case to go after the actually ffp framework itself? Since this all started with unfair football rules that fundamentally stifled owner investment.

No FFP no problem.
Click to expand...
No
 
projectriver said:
No
Click to expand...
Why can’t we challenge FFP in court? Because we signed up to the premier and Uefa rules?

So those rules can be abused by the authorities to destroy a club and potentially leave us in administration or wound up.

We know Uefa already changed the goal posts to snare us in the past. We also know that Uefa slandered our reputation and tried to ban us on flimsy made up evidence. The premier league are now trying the same approach while the club is lynched in public.

No point of law enabling recourse is perplexing.

Thanks for the blunt response -:)
 
People need to get their heads around there being no positive outcome for City in this.

At best there is a neutral outcome of probably some lesser charges (such a non co-op and possibly some minor accounting irregularity) that has a minimal affect bar a fine.

The worse outcome is possibly also over played by the press/ rival fans, the worse we will get will be a points deduction. This will slow us down at least for 1 season but more likely 2-3 (depending on how it works with signings, managers, motivation etc.)

I think the top one is the most likely and that in fact even if they prove something and something is there (it is very clear we have flown as close to the line as possible, with the question being have we over stepped). Then it is unlikely to have made us fail PL FFP which has a lot more wriggle room for us then UEFA.

I therefore think out of the 2 investigations, this one it is harder for them to push and UEFA will be time barred and doubt they have the stomach or appetite for round 2.

TBC the talk of flying close to the line/ over stepping. My view is we had to, to compete we will have asked for our best way to maximise our budget and then made a decision on what to do. We won’t be the only club to do that.

The club that have took the piss the most is PSG, who had a very significant back dated Qatari travel sponsor. How you can backdate sponsorship is beyond me.
 
wolviedinho said:
Why can’t we challenge FFP in court? Because we signed up to the premier and Uefa rules?

So those rules can be abused by the authorities to destroy a club and potentially leave us in administration or wound up.

We know Uefa already changed the goal posts to snare us in the past. We also know that Uefa slandered our reputation and tried to ban us on flimsy made up evidence. The premier league are now trying the same approach while the club is lynched in public.

No point of law enabling recourse is perplexing.

Thanks for the blunt response -:)
Click to expand...
Because.
 
terraloon said:
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.
Click to expand...
Stop digging you know nowt **** because yet again, your post is even factually correct & you’re now denying posting stuff

WUM

If you’re coming on a City forum to point fingers, & let’s have it right, that’s exactly what your doing, at least have the courtesy to know what you’re talking about & have something different to say other than:

Time barred
Mancini’s contract
Fordham image rights
CAS is wasn’t heard in peoples native tongue

We’ve heard this on loop for donkeys years

You’re clearly here to wind people up so why don’t you charmingly bless yourself, whilst kindly fucking off back to your mid table obscurity
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top