PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Nice to see the Muen backing City in our battle with the Premier League. Not. With such headlines as, Guardiola faces contract dilemma and Arsenal and Liverpool wait as City face possible title questions. Not a lot of backing there then. They are almost relishing it. Twats. The whole tone of the articles are not in City's favour. Now imagine if it was Liverpool and the Echo. They would at least back them up.
 
mac said:
Or whas it a dippers game also that snowed. They only cleared the dippers half at half time. Iirc
Click to expand...
It was the Leicester game. Liverpool left their half covered in snow and cleared the attacking half that was Leicester side. It didn’t work though and game was draw from what I recall.
 
It’s not an easy read, ref below, but exceptions to the six year rule are quite specific and imho none appear applicable to us. Would welcome a legal opinion. If limitation applies it looks like the case collapses. The super heated boiled piss would need intervention by the CAA, UK flights grounded for 24 hours.

Limitation Act 1980

An Act to consolidate the Limitation Acts 1939 to 1980.
www.legislation.gov.uk www.legislation.gov.uk
 
Paladin said:
The limitation is from when the charges are raised. So that's six years before February 2023, so they can charge us for any breaches after February 2017. This doesn't change depending on when the case is heard.

They have charged us much further back than 2017 though, which means the PL thinks it isn't subject to limitation. This will be because the PL rules do not mention limitation, whereas UEFA's own rules impose a five year limitation period on themselves.

The PL rules are made under English law though, so City will argue that a six year limitation should apply under the terms of The Limitation Act 1980. If the commission accepts this argument, all charges before 2017 will need to be dropped, and we will forever be accused of getting off on a technicality.
Click to expand...

Is the period when they can go back from February 2020 which is when the investigation was opened up or when the charges were laid out three years later?
 
Kinkys Left Foot said:
If we'd been accused of serious criminal matters at least we'd have only had to prove it once in a court of law.

The PL have approached this investigation almost as if the CAS judgements don't exist. Is the breach of PL FFP with regard to the same matters as were heard at CAS for UEFA FFP really that different being that one was based on the other.

Admittedly as a dye hard blue i'm approaching this from a perspective that the club have not breached these rules and there cannot be new compelling evidence to the contrary. There is massive (lol) speculation about these charges in the world of social media and mainstream news yet there has been not a single murmur anywhere of any further evidence uncovered by a four year investigation. In fact wankers like Piers Morgan and his backers are left raking up debunked old news and presenting it as new facts in some further attempt at pointing the finger and dirtying our name.

This double jeopardy is contrary to UK criminal law surely so why would it be allowed in Civil cases?
Does this mean we're waiting for the FA to join the party next and whoever runs the League Cup after that? This is what makes the whole process a fucking witch hunt.
Will we use the CAS judgements to back up our rebuttal evidence?
Do the CAS judgements give additional weight to such rebuttal evidence?

It's clearly an orchestrated attack on the club and its finances and achievements by the media, the PL (via the redshirts and Levy) all egging the general public on to sully our name and harbour resentment toward the club and us its fans, who are also denigrated. We're rats remember. We're still waiting for our promised apology from the ping pong cheat, Matthew Syed you fucking worm, for the judgement in our favour.

I can imagine SM and KAM are fucking seething with indignation at all this and have no doubt they will be taking names. They know perfectly well that revenge is a dish best served anonymously and cold. If we come out of this process relatively unscathed some of our most outspoken detractors should start to worry.

I must say this most recent furor following Everton's punishment was reported, has been all the more strange for the lack of comment by one of the keenest attack dogs. Everyone and I mean everyone has had their say on Citys charges yet Tebas has had not one word to say. Very strange.
Click to expand...
Double Jeopardy changed in April 2005 when sections 75-83 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 came into force. Consequently, a person can face a re-trial if

  • The Director of Public Prosecutions authorises it; and
  • There is new and compelling evidence, such as DNA or witness evidence; and
  • The person is being accused of committing a qualifying offence. The qualifying offences are all particularly serious offences which in the main carry a maximum sentence of life imprisonment
 
halfcenturyup said:
A perfectly understandable political move in my view, which doesn't mean, at all, that they will actually prevent the sale. Just let it all play out. If the son of a KGB agent can own a newspaper, I am pretty sure the VP of an ally can, especially when it has been made clear he won't have any operational role. NUFC/ Saudi anyone?
Click to expand...
Totally agree. Interesting that a lobbying company (Fleetwood) run by the Nasties top election strategist with a hot line to #10 is advising the Mail Group owners on their bid. And the last I read a month back is that this bid was bankrolled by Qatar.
The Torygraph is a pet paper for the Nasties and all pressure will be exerted to keep it under their ‘control.’
Once again we might just upset a traditional apple cart.
Dont think this is any sort of slight on our owners. This is about soft influence over a part of the established machine that influences a decent number of gammons.
Personally I think it’s a risky investment but what do I know!
 
Anyone else finding that you can't get more than four or five sentences into a conversation about City's charges before the other party exposes that they don't have a clue what they're on about?

That post earlier about us being in a 'post-truth society' really hits home. They've seen some bloke on Twitter say that 'City only got off on a technicality last time' and they all believe it.
 
nmc said:
The government’s intervention into the Telegraph sale is largely politically motivated…. The Telegraph is a loyal mouthpiece for the Tory’s which they are loathed to lose.
Click to expand...

Any government would be scrutinising that deal and rightly so, to be fair.
 
MarsLlama said:
Anyone else finding that you can't get more than four or five sentences into a conversation about City's charges before the other party exposes that they don't have a clue what they're on about?
Click to expand...
I can't say I've ever discussed it with anyone, and nobody has ever brought it up with me either.

I'm not worried about it at all, and I've no idea how this thread got to over 3000 pages.
 
BigJoe#1 said:
So please pray tell (and indulge me).....

If I was issued a ticket for travelling at 28 miles per hour in a 20 mph zone, would or should it stand? Given that the 20 mph zone was a 30 mph zone last week when the alleged offence occurred I would say there was not a leg for them to stand on and I'd anticipate the majority on here would agree.

Well this looks to me like what the Premier League are doing to City, changing the rules retrospectively and then charging City for historic breaches against current rules, Makes no sense, though top marks to them for trying....

BTW the scenario above was just that, a scenario.

This what makes me think they don't stand a chance of making it stick, not only that but the first questions to be asked should be "when did you first know about this?" and "why has it taken so long for you to make these accusations?"
Click to expand...
100%. You can only be charged for any offence based on the laws that existed at the time of the “offence”. Otherwise we’re into the world of arbitrariness and that is the antithesis of the rule of law.
 
johnnytapia said:
100%. You can only be charged for any offence based on the laws that existed at the time of the “offence”. Otherwise we’re into the world of arbitrariness and that is the antithesis of the rule of law.
Click to expand...
Kinell,I need to change my friends,that's to highbrow for a pleb like me.
 
Invisible Man's Bandage said:
The Telegraph is reporting that the government has issued a PIIN (Public Interest Intervention Notice) that will block the Redbird IMI backed buy back of the Telegraph by the Barclay family. This will trigger investigations by both Ofcom and the CMA to decide if it should be totally blocked or conditions be put in place before it is allowed.

The money for this buy back is almost exclusively coming from IMI, which is owned by Sheikh Mansour, and this is basically why they have done it. So a couple of days after Khaldoon was being courted by Jeremy Hunt for inward investment they are now effectively saying AD money isn't wanted for the Telegraph sale. The notion that the government will be leaning on the PL in support of our case looks a lot more like wishful thinking. They will pick and choose, so investment in Sizewell is deemed good but for other things it isn't wanted.
Click to expand...

The Conservative's rely on fawning and lies from The Sun and the Daily Mail - the owners of those two papers want to buy the Telegraph.

I guarantee that pressure from those owners and their editors has been put on the government to block the deal.
 
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