PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[halfcenturyup]

Let me try.

(Again.)

The relationship between City and the PL is essentially contractual. One of the terms of that contract is that any disputes will be referred to an independent panel for determination. One of the other provisions is that we will provide accurate accounts.

The claim against City is that we have breached this contract. The way in which we are said to have breached it is serious, and is an allegation of criminal conduct. But the forum in which this dispute will be resolved is that provided for in the contract, and the contract is expressly subject to English law.

This has certain consequence.

One is that English law applies to questions of limitation. Note that an allegation of criminality does not change the limitation period, because, to repeat, the dispute between City and the PL is at its heart a claim of breach of contract. So the rules that say serious charges (like murder or fraud) have no limitation period is inapplicable because this is a civil case (albeit one that includes allegations of fraud.) To put the same point another way, the allegation of criminality does not lift this dispute out of the realms of civil claims.

So, as Petrushka has (repeatedly) argued (correctly) the general 6 year limitation period applies, with the proviso that the fraudulent concealment of the breach would mean that the six year period would only begin once the fraud is discovered.

Maybe this particular groundhog can now be laid to rest.

Well yes, but are they actually charging the club with fraud?


:) Happy New Year, btw.

 

[Dribble]

I'm not sure what your argument angle is here. It's like you're trying to prove we didn't do it when we're actually talking about what the Premier League are implying by charging us in the first place. The Premier League are accusing us of committing accounting fraud with the charges. The second paragraph in the statement you wrote above even says exactly that.

This is what you originally said:

I keep repeating myself but city are accused of overstating revenue which is accounting fraud and is illegal in all countries including the UK for good reasons

As others have pointed out to you, City & Etisalat had a valid sponsorship agreement. However a UAE based financier Jaber Mohammed paid £15m in 2012 & 2013 to Manchester City, in respect to the Etisalat sponsorship agreement.

Etisalat used Jaber Mohammed's financial services as a bridging loans to pay City.

Everything was fine until a sentence in a stolen email which alludes to a City employee asking another employee to see if HRH could source third party finance to cover a portion of Etisalat's payments. Enter Jaber Mohammed.

There's no evidence from what I'm aware that this email was acted upon by HRH. Also, it's reasonable to assume because Etisalat repaid the £30m to Jaber Mohammed & these transactions appeared in their accounts, it should be case closed, but no.

UEFA & the PL are STILL wanting to haul us over the coals, not because we've committed a crime, it's because they believe we found a way to traverse our way around their FFP which they introduced to cripple us, & other ambitious clubs like us from the beginning.

I'd be more arsed about your argument, if UEFA & the PL were the honest actors they make themselves out to be. They're not. It's a fight they started, & are seemingly willing to keep on fighting to quench the hatred the G14 & Hateful Eight have for City.

They've zero case in UK Law, & only a case when their private members rules are applied, so Fuck em!

 

[Dribble]

:) I don't think it matters anyway. They won't be able to prove anything conclusive against the evidence the club will provide.

This is my whole point. I can accuse you of whatever. Proving a crime has been committed is a totally different thing.

If all the PL & UEFA have to go on is a sentence in a stolen email from 2012, they're on flimsy ground.

It's evident to me they're not only pursuing these charges in the faint hope some will stick, but in the full knowledge that the reputational damage to City being called fraudsters who wouldn't have achieved success unless we cheated, will be the next best outcome.

It's working too. My Spuds supporting family already believe they'd have won a PL or two if not for us being FFP cheats. ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠⊙⁠_⁠ʖ⁠⊙⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

Well yes, but are they actually charging the club with fraud?


:) Happy New Year, btw.

Essentially yes - inaccurate accounts ammount to fraud. Having alleged this the PL now need to find their big boy pants and put up or shut up. My guess is they'll be happy for the limitation period or other technicalities to get us (and the PL) off the hook as it spares their blushes, leaves the smell of shit hanging around us and the PL can tell the red shirt wankers they tried their best.

 

[Dribble]

Essentially yes - inaccurate accounts ammount to fraud. Having alleged this the PL now need to find their big boy pants and put up or shut up. My guess is they'll be happy for the limitation period or other technicalities to get us (and the PL) off the hook as it spares their blushes, leaves the smell of shit hanging around us and the PL can tell the red shirt wankers they tried their best.

Exactly this... It's already cost them their grip on the PL, with the government setting up IREF.

If the PL could go back, I bet they wish they never opened this can of worms...

 

[halfcenturyup]

Essentially yes - inaccurate accounts ammount to fraud. Having alleged this the PL now need to find their big boy pants and put up or shut up. My guess is they'll be happy for the limitation period or other technicalities to get us (and the PL) off the hook as it spares their blushes, leaves the smell of shit hanging around us and the PL can tell the red shirt wankers they tried their best.

Sorry, I was trying to be funny :)

Accountants like to annoy lawyers. Who doesn't?

But here is a question. If the panel decides some issues are time-barred, can the club waive the limitation in the interest of getting complete closure? Two questions, I suppose. Can they and would they?

 

[nellyonthewing]

This is my whole point. I can accuse you of whatever. Proving a crime has been committed is a totally different thing.

If all the PL & UEFA have to go on is a sentence in a stolen email from 2012, they're on flimsy ground.

It's evident to me they're not only pursuing these charges in the faint hope some will stick, but in the full knowledge that the reputational damage to City being called fraudsters who wouldn't have achieved success unless we cheated, will be the next best outcome.

It's working too. My Spuds supporting family already believe they'd have won a PL or two if not for us being FFP cheats. ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠⊙⁠_⁠ʖ⁠⊙⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

I agree with you. A scurrilous and blatant trashing of our reputation . If they dropped the case tomorrow a large amount of the shit they have thrown at us will stick unless they retracted and apologised. Not in my lifetime as someone once said.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Let me try.

(Again.)

The relationship between City and the PL is essentially contractual. One of the terms of that contract is that any disputes will be referred to an independent panel for determination. One of the other provisions is that we will provide accurate accounts.

The claim against City is that we have breached this contract. The way in which we are said to have breached it is serious, and is an allegation of criminal conduct. But the forum in which this dispute will be resolved is that provided for in the contract, and the contract is expressly subject to English law.

This has certain consequence.

One is that English law applies to questions of limitation. Note that an allegation of criminality does not change the limitation period, because, to repeat, the dispute between City and the PL is at its heart a claim of breach of contract. So the rules that say serious charges (like murder or fraud) have no limitation period is inapplicable because this is a civil case (albeit one that includes allegations of fraud.) To put the same point another way, the allegation of criminality does not lift this dispute out of the realms of civil claims.

So, as Petrushka has (repeatedly) argued (correctly) the general 6 year limitation period applies, with the proviso that the fraudulent concealment of the breach would mean that the six year period would only begin once the fraud is discovered.

Maybe this particular groundhog can now be laid to rest.

Listen to this fella he knows his stuff.

 

[Dribble]

I agree with you. A scurrilous and blatant trashing of our reputation . If they dropped the case tomorrow a large amount of the shit they have thrown at us will stick unless they retracted and apologised. Not in my lifetime as someone once said.

And it will devalue our achievements in the eyes of many opposition fans forever. Guilty or not guilty, it's job done.

 

[Sheikh rattle and roll]

Currently nobody, apart from the two parties to the case, "knows" exactly to what the charges refer to. As invested fans and some more experienced legal and accounts based professionals have commented, we can have a very good guess though as we have the point source of the investigation, which is the emails, as well as the distinct wording, in some parts, of the charges.

Despite and more likely because of the length of the investigation it would appear that no smoking gun evidence has been "revealed", although this is currently surmised, our position (fans) is that it cannot be found as it doesn't exist.

We also can refer to the charges made by UEFA and the CAS decision and judgement as a source of information as confirmation of the allegations of the alleged financial malfeasance.

It would seem that both the Etihad and Etisalat sponsorship deals are clearly the contractual arrangements the PL are alleging constitute those leading to a breach of the rule below.

1. In respect of each of Seasons 2009/10 to 2017/18 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those seasons that required provision by a member club to the Premier League, in the utmost good faith, of accurate financial information that gives a true and fair view of the club’s financial position, in particular with respect to its revenue (including sponsorship revenue), its related parties and its operating costs,

We know CAS heard the evidence regarding the Etihad deal from both parties, that evidence is laid out in the judgement. The plaintiffs argument, based solely on the emails, was we disguised sponsorship money as owner investment. That substantial parts of the money to fulfil the contract between City and Etihad was paid by ADUG, our owners company. We refuted that and offered substantial rebuttal evidence to those allegations with testimony under oath by City executives and testimony from Etihad executives. Also separate accountancy audited evidence by a third party. We all know CAS found in our favour and the judgement clearly states that their was insufficient evidence to support the allegations of conspired, sustained fraud between all these parties and that the panel was not satisfied of the truth of the allegations to a comfortable satisfaction.

It would therefore seem the PL want to test the same argument, allege the same conduct, this time breaking their rules of "submission of financial information" in relation to sponsorship revenue, in good faith (ie fraudulent accounts) with exactly the same evidence but in a UK court action on the balance of probability and expect a different outcome.

One could argue that position is reasonable if the original findings were legally perverse or subsequently found to be based on false or incomplete evidence where new cogent evidence has become available. Currently none of the above seems likely. Should we believe the PL position is therefore unreasonable? That of course will be the clubs' fans position.

The Etisalat issues are more complicated in that although evidence from both parties was heard at CAS, the emails versus our rebuttal evidence regarding the 2 x £15 million payments, no ruling by the panel was given, as the matters were deemed time barred by UEFAs own rules, once the panel had decided on the exact date from which to measure the required eligibility. That was neither date offered by UEFA or City but certainly a date which ruled the matters time barred. I think in addition CAS opined that UEFA offered no evidence in the matter despite Citys wealth of counter evidence.

Clearly as the matter has not been ruled on the PL may be seeking to include this as part of their "submission of financial information" in relation to sponsorship revenue breach.

It would seem that if so, they must establish, by submission of such cogent evidence, to allege fraudulent activity by City or its executives to bypass what would clearly be time barred by UK law under the limitations. If I'm correct in that assumption, we as fans are again wondering where is this evidence?

I've also been left wondering the fact that "fraud" is part of a criminal statute yet here it's attempting to be established in a civil case. When offering evidence to establish such "fraud" what burden of proof is required to establish the presence of the alleged "fraud" to negate the time barring issue?

I think it's clear our advocates will seek to have these alleged breaches time barred although it would appear not to be a thoroughly satisfactory outcome from a general publics opinion standpoint, if that were to be the case. Although I think we all know the great unwasheds opinion is already immovably formed thanks to the UK media and its red lackeys.

There are of course several other charges in relation to player and nanager remuneration causing fiduciary breaches but none seemingly as serious as the sponsorship issues in respect of creating false accounts and all of which UEFA were aware of but never challenged as a breach of FFP rules.

The judgement in this case is going to be an epic read. Let's hope like a good Thai massage it has a City happy ending.

Very insightful and thanks but that’s an hell of a post at 5 am on NYE