PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[wolviedinho]

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.

Good post. I agree we won’t come out of this unscathed. A non co operation fine would be a hard enough pill to swallow let alone a points deduction. The later would not be the end of the word but would harm our reputation and cement the cheat narrative.

I still can’t see it going this far tbh. Maybe it’s blue wishful thinking. Unless the premier have us by the balls then an agreement will be reached leaving city with a bloody nose.

Ironic that ffp can be used as a weapon to destroy clubs when it was supposed to do the opposite.

Also, if we never stood a chance against these bent cunts why the fuck have we been trying so hard to stay within their made up rules? Should have just taken the psg approach and spent what we wanted each season instead of having no fucking fullbacks -:)

 

[CC1]

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.

God you’re an arrogant cockney git. Why can’t you take the hint. We’re not interested in anything that a Chelsea fan says especially when you’re trying to make out you’re being helpful. Compared with some of our well-informed fans on here you’re a know-nowt. (That’s Manc for ill informed)

 

[SilverFox2]

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.

Can City elect to take PL to High Court in another country like Mr Abromovic did RE his dispute with a fellow Oligarch? Perhaps it needs both parties to agree but I remain dubious that the panel will be fair in its legal assessment especially as it is done in secret.

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

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.

Diddley Squat?
Is this another legal term?
Would that be less likely than the balance of probabilities?

 

[halfcenturyup]

Can City elect to take PL to High Court in another country like Mr Abromovic did RE his dispute with a fellow Oligarch? Perhaps it needs both parties to agree but I remain dubious that the panel will be fair in its legal assessment especially as it is done in secret.

With left field thinking like that you could be the new left back we need. :)

But what is it with the PL's need for i) independent panels that they choose the members of and ii) secrecy? It's almost like football is fixed. Good name for a website that, I think.

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

Maly said:
& if my auntie had bollocks, she’s be my uncle. If, buts & maybe’s

Depends how THEY identified themselves. Get with the times.

 

[petrusha]

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.

One member of the CAS Panel actually was a native English speaker. But as someone who works abroad and deals every day with non-native speakers using English in a legal context, a few of whom handle international arbitration cases in English before tribunals in various different countries. I can tell you that there are many such people who have excellent English, in some cases better than many posters on here.

Putting the boot on the other foot, I've appeared as an expert witness in two Russian court cases. On each occasion, I'd first been questioned as a witness at length and produced a witness statement. I did that without an interpreter, but asked for an interpreter in the first court case - not because I needed it, but because I thought it would be handy if I needed to disrupt the flow of clever defence lawyers who were trying to discredit me. But in fact it didn't work out like that and I dispensed with the interpreter on the second occasion.

Both times, the court fully understood and was able to evaluate the evidence I gave, and the CAS arbitrators will have had no linguistic problem whatsoever in performing their functions. You've mentioned the language issue more than once and seem to think it has some relevance. I completely disagree.

The PL's Rules, by the way, may not specify a limitation period but nonetheless are subject to the Limitation Act 1980, which specifies a general limitation period of six years. However, under section 32(1) of that Act, where an action is based on fraud or the deliberate concealment of relevant facts, the limitation period runs from the time when the fraud or concealment is discovered.

City will therefore argue that everything outside a six-year period is time-barred. The PL must be relying on concealment here and will no doubt maintain that the period should run from the time of the Der Spiegel leaks, when it first became aware of the matters at hand.

Meanwhile, I've just done a quick search and seen that you've referred seven times to Swiss law in the context of the CAS proceedings. I'm rather puzzled as to why you seem to think it matters at all. The fate of the PL's case ultimately comes down to the quality of the evidence that both parties will adduce.

 

[OB1]

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

Why would you think the Mancini payments require HMRC investigation?

It's not illegal to have more than one source of income. If Mancini was paid by for services rendered to a Company in AD and declared that revenue on his tax return, HMRC have nothng to investigate. It certainly wouldn't be worth their while trying to prove that City had tried to avoid paying Employer's NIC.

HMRC will be delighted if City have inflated their revenue and reduced costs as that would ultimately give them more chance of getting some corporation tax out of City, which would probably outweigh any lost NIC. IF City are guilty of any FFP charges.

 

[terraloon]

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.

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

Suggest you read 163-166 of CAS ruling that will detail exactly what time barred in this matter comes from and against what CAS judged the matter

 

[Chris in London]

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.

The PL proceedings in my view are very likely to fail (apart from the non cooperation charges) just as substantially the same charges failed before CAS. Criminal prosecutions face a far higher hurdle and are therefore much more likely to fail.

Now I really am finished with that particular issue.

 

[Chris in London]

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?

Many large organisations keep their records for significianly longer. Much easier to do now everything cal be held digitally. My guess is that we can prove what we say going back to the time of the ADUG takeover.

 

[Chris in London]

Suggest you read 163-166 of CAS ruling that will detail exactly what time barred in this matter comes from and against what CAS judged the matter

Presumably you missed the bit in my post that said the contractual arrangement between MCFC and the PL is governed by English law. Suggest you read the Limitation Act 1980.

 

[terraloon]

One member of the CAS Panel actually was a native English speaker. But as someone who works abroad and deals every day with non-native speakers using English in a legal context, a few of whom handle international arbitration cases in English before tribunals in various different countries. I can tell you that there are many such people who have excellent English, in some cases better than many posters on here.

Putting the boot on the other foot, I've appeared as an expert witness in two Russian court cases. On each occasion, I'd first been questioned as a witness at length and produced a witness statement. I did that without an interpreter, but asked for an interpreter in the first court case - not because I needed it, but because I thought it would be handy if I needed to disrupt the flow of clever defence lawyers who were trying to discredit me. But in fact it didn't work out like that and I dispensed with the interpreter on the second occasion.

Both times, the court fully understood and was able to evaluate the evidence I gave, and the CAS arbitrators will have had no linguistic problem whatsoever in performing their functions. You've mentioned the language issue more than once and seem to think it has some relevance. I completely disagree.

The PL's Rules, by the way, may not specify a limitation period but nonetheless are subject to the Limitation Act 1980, which specifies a general limitation period of six years. However, under section 32(1) of that Act, where an action is based on fraud or the deliberate concealment of relevant facts, the limitation period runs from the time when the fraud or concealment is discovered.

City will therefore argue that everything outside a six-year period is time-barred. The PL must be relying on concealment here and will no doubt maintain that the period should run from the time of the Der Spiegel leaks, when it first became aware of the matters at hand.

Meanwhile, I've just done a quick search and seen that you've referred seven times to Swiss law in the context of the CAS proceedings. I'm rather puzzled as to why you seem to think it matters at all. The fate of the PL's case ultimately comes down to the quality of the evidence that both parties will adduce.

Threethings

1) I have no doubt that City will try and restrict the years to which charges can be applied but the PL will no doubt counter argue that all the information sent in by City was accepted in good faith it was the disclosure of the emails that was the time they became aware.
2) The reference I make to Swiss law is that CAS conduct their Arbitration using the relevant prices and procedures contained therein and of course UEFA is under Swiss jurisdiction. But the PL panel, the Inevitable appeal and arbitration won’t be conducted in the same manner as a civil court case
3) Under the UEFA appeal and the CAS hearing City were able to introduce matters that werent first admitted into evidence at the origin hearing. There are severe restrictions around that in the way in which PL appeals are conducted.

 

[terraloon]

Presumably you missed the bit in my post that said the contractual arrangement between MCFC and the PL is governed by English law. Suggest you read the Limitation Act 1980.

I have a couple of times but S32 of the act is the issue

 

[Chris in London]

Can City elect to take PL to High Court in another country like Mr Abromovic did RE his dispute with a fellow Oligarch? Perhaps it needs both parties to agree but I remain dubious that the panel will be fair in its legal assessment especially as it is done in secret.

They are just as likely to succeed as any other defendant who brings/defends a case in country A, doesn't like the result, so brings substantially the same case in country B. (Which is not at all.) Whatever the result in country B, so far as our courts and our law is concerned, once we've exhausted the appeal routes available to us, that's that.

 

[Chris in London]

I have a couple of times but S32 of the act is the issue

Then you'll understand why the PL will need to adduce particularly cogent evidence to clear the threshold imposed by the Act, and why, in the event of a failure to establish fraud etc the ordinary 6 year rule will apply.

 

[Chris in London]

Diddley Squat?
Is this another legal term?
Would that be less likely than the balance of probabilities?

No, it's a farm in Oxfordshire.

 

[StillBluessinceHydeRoad]

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 -:)

There are two issues here. One is the validity of FFP and it seems to me that it is quite clearly not consistent with competition law both in the EU and the UK, so we can appeal to the courts to have it declared unlawful. But the PL investigation alleges that the club is guilty of a quite different offence - that of false accounting and there is no way that this would be justified by arguing that FFP made it necessary. One offence never justifies another! City's defence has to be that we haven't done what we are accused of. If we can show that these charges are part of a much wider vendetta against the club that would certainly be to our advantage, but we MUST show that we have no case to answer on the charges of false acconting.

 

[terraloon]

Then you'll understand why the PL will need to adduce particularly cogent evidence to clear the threshold imposed by the Act, and why, in the event of a failure to establish fraud etc the ordinary 6 year rule will apply.

Isnt that the whole basis of the PL case ?

Looking again a S32 , and I know you say etc, but the wording in S32 is dealing with fraud, concealment or mistake

Their contention is that all contracts re players, re managers all financial information is submitted in good faith and save certain issues the football authorities in England don’t have a process, resources or requirement to conduct a deep dive into the numbers.

 

[Keeper!]

That's why I'm pointing it out.......

You seemed to make the point the staff were leaving because of our impeding doom.