Obviously I bow to your expertise in this field! Makes you wonder why the PL are charging us with offences dating back to 2009/10 in that case.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules
- Thread starter ayrshire_blue
- Start date
mac
Well-Known Member
Why get rid of ffp now. We are light years ahead. The istree clubs are shiting it over ffp.FFP was really a problem to City in its early stages where prolonged investment was needed.
Their problem now that we have been self sufficient for several years is that City continue to invest.
Tightening FFPs impact simply makes it more difficult for the other clubs to comply so works in our favour.
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
I suspect it's to do with the fact that they know they're on thin ice legally and we'll contest the case on limitation grounds, which will allow the media to reprise the "they only got off on a technicality" schtick.Obviously I bow to your expertise in this field! Makes you wonder why the PL are charging us with offences dating back to 2009/10 in that case.
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
Not my field!Obviously I bow to your expertise in this field! Makes you wonder why the PL are charging us with offences dating back to 2009/10 in that case.
The answer is either
1. Those matters were not discovered until more recently.
2. They do not think limitation periods apply to the agreement between them and City.
3. They are cunts. *
* 3. should be read in conjunction with 1. and/or 2.
The Saudis now have the perfect leverage.
Admit our clubs into the Champions League or we simply go all golf and bankroll a separate comp under this Super League guise.
People rubbished the golf breakaway but with Real Madrid and Barca on board, the Saudis will consider it a risk worth paying.
Doesn't matter the government will stop any new super league
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
At last, after seven years - a Brexit benefit!Doesn't matter the government will stop any new super league
Knew we’d find one eventually.
I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but I do pay particular attention to patterns, frequencies & coincidences.
Until an official date for the hearing is announced, I suppose everything is hearsay. However, a date of next September sounds about right, which gives the adjudication panel ample time to get familiar with the particulars of the case.
Agreed, time to review the charges, evidence & any resultant appeals could easily add up to the speculated four year process, & if we appeal the process to the UK civil courts, it could take even longer.
However, in terms of the coincidences & UK/Abu Dhabi governmental involvement, I believe they've zero bearing on the strength or weakness of our defence.
Neither UEFA or The Premier League have been playing straight with us from the outset. It's been move & counter move, as they tried to strangle Sheikh Mansour's Manchester City at birth, & we've attempted to find ways around them halting our progress.
If FFP hadn't been created to stop us, none of this would be happening, but it is what it is. We did what we did to progress, & had our interim accounts agreed in March 2013 with UEFA.
We submitted our full audited accounts a month later, by which time UEFA had shifted their monitoring period back by 12 months without telling us, meaning we went from being £3m inside FFP to being £3 outside, with the resultant punitive punishments & sanctions. Khaldoon was livid!
He said then that City would take 'a pinch' this time, but the next time UEFA came after us, rather than pay a £30m fine, we'd spend £30m on the world's finest Lawyers & splatter them!
Months later Platini & Blatter were arrested by the FBI for fraud involving the use of US dollars, which I found seriously odd.
Then the PL come after City on UEFA's behalf. Abu Dhabi pulls its £10bn UK investment. The UK Government manages to revive the deal, but a month later & out of the Blue, they tell the PL they're setting up an independent football regulator.
Three days later the PL charge City. Nine months later, the Independent Regulator is included in the King's Speech, meaning it's part of the Government's business before the next election.
Personally, I think the timing of all of this is more than sheer coincidence. As for our innocence or guilt, we already know we won't get a fair hearing with UEFA or the PL, so as Khaldoon said in 2014, if they came after us again, this time it'll be with our gloves off, & it seems that exactly what's happened mate.
It's the hacked emails that kicked all this off nothing else
Dribble
Well-Known Member
Got it in one mate. I spent a few days shitting myself & fearing the worse until I stood back & took a global view of it all.Good post. If the PL are so certain that we have committed fraud they should have referred the case to the Serious Fraud Office. On the basis that they have not done that it suggests to me that the 115 charges are simply a smear campaign against City and are designed to appease the baying mob made up mostly of fans that support old big teams suffering from year on year under performance.
I'm cautious by nature, so I know we can't rule anything out, but if City have committed serious fraud, the SFO, FCA, HMRC & the UK Government should have been lawfully alerted, & I'm sure they'd be up our arse right now.
In fact, if UEFA & the PL accuse us of inflating our income, presumably we've paid far higher sums in tax? HMRC & The Government will be our best mates if that's the case! :-)
I think it's mostly bullshit, & I noted the Government's statement that the independent regulator can act retrospectively, so even if the PL stiff us, the new regulator can reverse whatever decision the PL's panel reach. \0/
johnnytapia
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Feb 2012
- Messages
- 12,471
If the date of issue of claim is 29th Feb, could you count back 24 years?That makes sense because in a civil claim the date you count back from is the date of issue of the claim. I seem to recall that the day the cause of action accrues is excluded from the calculation so it’s actually six years and one day in practical terms for contractual claims.
Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Apr 2019
- Messages
- 20,394
- Team supported
- FC Zurich (and city of course)
Spot on - allows PL to tread that fine line between doing nothing to city but at the same time saying they tried their best to shaft us. I suspect the game being played by American owned clubs here is to hope city get shafted or if not to use that as a pretext to claim the moral high ground while they flounce off to form ESLI suspect it's to do with the fact that they know they're on thin ice legally and we'll contest the case on limitation grounds, which will allow the media to reprise the "they only got off on a technicality" schtick.
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
Had a mate who got married on 29th February. Great shout tbf!If the date of issue of claim is 29th Feb, could you count back 24 years?
Dribble
Well-Known Member
Exactly, hence why the PL has spent 5 years trying to trump up charges to fit us up with.It's the hacked emails that kicked all this off nothing else
We all know it's the Red Top Mafia, Spurs & UEFA who're behind all this.
Fuck the lot of them! They'd love Baldy to walk in disgust, but he said he's staying with City regardless, & even more so if we get relegated to League One, cos he'll relish the challenge of getting us back to the top of the PL. :-)
Dribble
Well-Known Member
It's actually the severity of the case that counts. If it's Bernie Madoff level of fraud & concealment or serial murders which would be tried in the Crown Court, then there's no statute of limitations.Limitation period. And I’m pretty sure it does, but from the date of discovery, not the date of the alleged fraud/concealment.
If it's a magistrates job, then the limitation is 6 months. If it's to do with debt, contracts etc, then it's 6 years.
Having looked deeply into this, I've no idea where the PL are going with this, especially from a statute of limitation angle.
If what we're accused of is that serious, they're legally bound to call in the law. The fact they haven't speaks volumes.
Dribble
Well-Known Member
I think UK Law states it's from the date of the offence. On that basis alone, I've no idea where the PL's going with this, as it has no basis in law.CAS's view (which admittedly involves Swiss Law) was that the limitation period was based on the date the case was referred to the Adjudicatory Panel, which is basically the date on which the charges were officially laid.
The PL equivalent will presumably be the date the case was passed to the Independent Panel, which was February 2023. That means any contracts or transactions in the 2016/17 financial year and subsequent years.
Their bullshit FFP rules don't trump UK Law, as stated in their very own memorandum of articles & association.
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
I was talking about civil proceedings not criminal.It's actually the severity of the case that counts. If it's Bernie Madoff level of fraud & concealment or serial murders which would be tried in the Crown Court, then there's no statute of limitations.
If it's a magistrates job, then the limitation is 6 months. If it's to do with debt, contracts etc, then it's 6 years.
Having looked deeply into this, I've no idea where the PL are going with this, especially from a statute of limitation angle.
If what we're accused of is that serious, they're legally bound to call in the law. The fact they haven't speaks volumes.
You are correct, there is no limitation period (as such) for either way or indictable only criminal offences, but you are wrong about summary only offences, as many regulatory offences (within the legislation that deals with them) increase the six month time limit provided in section 127(1) of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980 - for up to two years for some offences.
I thought it applied from the moment they find out about the said fraud?Pretty sure this is incorrect. If fraud/concealment is proved then the statute of limitations doesn't apply.
Only what I read somewhere, so that could be wrong also.
Dribble
Well-Known Member
Agreed. And it's at the discretion of the court to extend the mamdatory 6 month limitation period to two years if they see fit, hence why this is all so odd. This is for minor criminal cases from the date of the offence.I was talking about civil proceedings not criminal.
You are correct, there is no limitation period (as such) for either way or indictable only criminal offences, but you are wrong about summary only offences, as many regulatory offences (within the legislation that deals with them) increase the six month time limit provided in section 127(1) of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980 - for up to two years for some offences.
Obviously the PL can't charge us criminally or civilly, so they're essentially using the rules of their private members club to try & hammer City, hence why they don't want UK Law or statutory bodies getting involved, because we've done nothing wrong.
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 14,982
I was talking about civil proceedings not criminal.
You are correct, there is no limitation period (as such) for either way or indictable only criminal offences, but you are wrong about summary only offences, as many regulatory offences (within the legislation that deals with them) increase the six month time limit provided in section 127(1) of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980 - for up to two years for some offences.
This is all so confusing :)
Doesn't the discovery of the emails play a part rather than when the alleged breaches happened? Charged in 2023, so any breaches discovered after 2017 (ie all of them) are allowable?
Or why Liverpool hacking our scouting database is time barred.Obviously I bow to your expertise in this field! Makes you wonder why the PL are charging us with offences dating back to 2009/10 in that case.
“It happened a long time ago”
Computer Hacking is surely a serious crime and happened after 09/10
Call me sceptical but it seems the premier league are picking and choosing what they are enforcing.
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
We see that every fucking week with their refs.Call me sceptical but it seems the premier league are picking and choosing what they are enforcing.