I think most fans think like this. None of my mates who are a mix of Arse, utd, Chelsea or Liverpool fans ever mention the charges. Its only the Internet warriors that focus on this in my opinion.
It's not a rant mate, what you've just perfectly outlined is the reality of the situation.Don’t forget the endless list of corrupt companies all willingly concealing evidence of our alleged fiddling! Just so little city can win a few trophies.
Etihad already lied to CAS so spinning a tale to the premier will be no problem! All those high end CEO’s will be gathering mountains of evidence to support their own position incase the old bill turn up.
I would be very surprised if city’s case isn't water tight. Not one person involved with city from a 3rd party commercial aspect has anything to gain by city getting charged but a lot to lose so I would image they have their statements ready to go backed up with irrefutable evidence.
Not 1 company has distanced themselves from the club. Tells you they know what this is all about.
Political games at play that all this is. Unfortunately city fans are caught in the crossfire. Khaldoon is a juggernaut and won’t be so easily swayed now he has got the measure of this ffp/p&s nonsense.
Apologies for the rant. Getting rightly on here -:)
There was a Sheffield United fan on tram back to Ashton after the game and he was very complimentary about us.Hmm, a Blades fan messaged me after the match that he hopes we win the title because:
1. we play the best football
2. he can't stand Liverpool
No mention of charges.
Top Berting, mate.Was in the supermarket today and had a city tracksuit top on, stood in the queue and some oversized utd fan, I'll use the term fan loosely as the spray on top he wore was anything but loose, pointed and said how are the 115 charges getting on. As I was a bit fuzzy from a few beers the night before It took me a few seconds to realise what fatty was on about. So I thought I'd ask him to name every single one. Go on mate I egged him on, what are the charges for? Erm...erm....ermmm being bitter was his reply and walked off.
I just laughed to myself thinking look at what we've turned these pricks into, we've ruined them.
Made my day.
There’s a flag somewhere with a hard on.The charges are not for being bitter. They are for being better.
That would be using your loaf !I know and I very nearly said that to him but I didn't want to confuse him even more. Gobby twats aren't they, just randomly coming out with that to someone they don't even know. He's lucky I didn't wrap my loaf of bread around his napper :)
sausage roll?I know and I very nearly said that to him but I didn't want to confuse him even more. Gobby twats aren't they, just randomly coming out with that to someone they don't even know. He's lucky I didn't wrap my loaf of bread around his napper :)
Not quite. Read A again. I never invested in my son's business, I paid his bill personally to help him out, not from my company's account.
As for the rest, you're arguing with yourself because I've repeated most of it already, but added scenarios which you haven't addressed.
The short & tall of it is we're essentially being accused of financial fraud. BUT it's financial fraud based on UEFA/PL "rules", NOT UK Law.
If what we'd done was against UK Law, do you really think the PL wouldn't have already called the Plod, FCA, HMRC & the SFO?
This is the point everyone's making, & you keep going round in circles with. The PL can believe what they like.
When they produce irrefutable empirical evidence, then it's time to start cacking our pants. In the meantime, just trust the process & the serious ultra professionals involved on City's behalf.
I wouldn't normally resurrect a post this far back in a thread, but this is a crucial issue in terms of how the allegations against City will be disposed of. It's important to ensure that the thread correctly states the lagal position because most users of this forum won't have first-hand knowledge of the relevant matters and rely on what others with ostensibly greater knowledge have posted. In view of this, I'd be grateful if you could cite a source for your unyielding statement above.
My own view of the situation has always been somewhat different. I believe that the PL's allegations are subject to a six-year limitation period from the cause of action (section 5 of the Limitation Act 1980). However, where a claim is based on matters allegedly entailing fraud or concealment on the part of a defendant, the six-year period runs not from the cause of action but from when the claimant discovers the fraud or concealment.
This is because the PL Rules are expressly stated to be subject to English law and they operate as a contract between each individual member club and the other member clubs as well as between each individual member club and the PL itself. Thus, the nature of the proceedings between the PL and Manchester City is such that they're subject to the provisions of the Limitation Act 1980, the statute that governs prescriptive periods for bringing legal actions across a range of civil-law matters in England and Wales (not the whole UK).
The provisions of the 1980 Act that are relevant to contractual affairs between the PL and MCFC are sections 5 and 32, referred to above. In addition, section 8 of the 1980 Act stipulates a 12-year limitation period for certain contracts but has no relevance to City's case.
The 1980 Act and other pieces of legislation do provide that a court has the right to disapply the limitation period in specific categories of cases. Examples are cases involving personal injury and defamation (both by virtue of specific provisions of the 1980 Act itself), claims against public authorities based on human rights considerations (by virtue of the Human Rights Act 1998) and equal pay or discrimination-based claims (by virtue of the Equalities Act 2010). There are various others, too.
I'm aware of - and can find - nothing, however, that creates such a discretion in a case such as City's. If I'm missing something obvious, please enlighten me.
Jesus Christ! Not this again.
Though the CAS saved us, UEFA found us guilty of lying, in our audited accounts and various financial submissions to them, about the source of GBP 50 million annually such that we presented it as income that could legitimately be expended under the FFP rules on transfers and player wages among other things when those funds in fact constituted owner investment that couldn't be spent on those items under the rules.
That UEFA made such a determination is there in black and white in the CAS award. MCFC certainly considered that the allegations were tantamount to accusations of fraud on the part of the club: see point 13(a) of City's case reproduced in para 61 of the Award and point 48 of City's case reproduced in para 61 of the Award.
As for UEFA's view on the matter, on page 11, under the heading "Disciplinary measures", it's stated that MCFC's conduct constituted "a series of very serious breaches, over [a four-year period] which were committed intentionally and concealed". Moreover, when the club offered its defence to UEFA, it did so "putting forward a case that ADUG knew to be misleading". So they outright accused the club of systematic, dishonest conduct, and of lying about that conduct in an attempt "to circumvent the objectives of [UEFA's FFP] Regulations".
Thankfully the CAS stated many times (twelve, if I remember correctly) in its award there was "no evidence" of our having done what UEFA alleged we had. However, make no mistake, the allegation was that we lied and falsified our accounts to facilitate extra spending of GBP 50 per season.
The PL charges, as far as anyone can judge from information in the public domain, repeat the accusation. In particular, the PL's statement of charges featured the following allegation (reproduced from here, with the emphasis mine) that City have breached:
The references in that accusation to the duty to act "in ... good faith" and to produce financial information giving a "true and fair view" in addition to the specific mention of "sponsorship revenue" suggests that the PL's charge is exactly the same as UEFA's in this regard. Those formulations really don't lend themselves to any other credible interpretation.
Below, I reproduce section 17 of the Theft Act 1968, which deals with the fraud-based offence of false accounting:
We may have been vindicated by the CAS, but UEFA found MCFC as a club guilty of conduct that inevitably entailed the commission by individual officers and employees of the club of the offence under section 17 of the 1968 Act (see the summary of UEFA's case above) because they:
The wording of the PL's charges against MCFC clearly signpost that, again, we're in this territory. They're not likely to make insinuations with regard to bad-faith conduct and accounts not giving a true and fair view if all that's under discussion amounts to a legitimate difference of opinion as to how certain items should be accounted for under the relevant rules. The current media hysteria about the "charges" against us isn't due to them relating solely to accounting issues!
- would have had to have acted dishonestly (they're sophisticated businesspeople who fully understood UEFA's rules and, according to UEFA, knew what they were doing);
- would certainly have been acting with a view to gain ... for another (the other being the club, and such gain taking the form of allowing the club to spend £200 million that otherwise wouldn't have counted as income for FFP purposes, as referred to in para 206 of the CAS Award); and
- would have supplied various sets of accounts and other documents that were "misleading, false or deceptive" because they'd have provided documents including but not limited to our annual accounts that duped UEFA into thinking we had an extra £50 million available to us annually while still meeting the requirements of FFP.
I ultimately think it was outrageous for UEFA to put forward the case against us it did based on the evidence it had. Our club was dragged through the mud as a result, but more importantly it was a serious attempt to inflict serious, lasting damage on our club. Now the PL seems to be repeating the exercise, and, if it's putting forward a similar case, it needs calling out on that.
As it stands, the PL seems to be happy to throw around accusations of incendiary seriousness. And if the PL wants to act in such a way, we should be highlighting that rather than diminishing it. LET THE PL FUCKING OWN ITS CONDUCT.
You see. Your issue is you're so consumed with your own confusing opinion, you DON'T listen.And you are so convinced the PL isn't accusing the club of fraud, maybe you can explain to us all where he is going wrong with this analysis (not asking for your opinion on how valid the accusations are, or how we can defend them, just if the accusations effectively amount to fraud
You see. Your issue is you're so consumed with your own confusing opinion, you DON'T listen.
Can you show me where I've said UEFA or the PL aren't accusing City of fraud? I'll wait... ¯\_(⊙_ʖ⊙)_/¯
Essentially, what City are accused of isn't even illegal in UK Law, only in the PL's rules which they state are governed by UK Law.
So by definition, if the criminal statute of limitations of 6 months was applied to our charge, we'd have no case to answer.
I honestly believe you're being purposely obtuse. I stated:For a start, this bit:
So in the space of two paragraphs in the same post, you managed to completely misrepresent how the 1980 Limitation Act and the 1968 Theft Act are applicable to the PL's case against City. Way to go.
There are more, including many irrelevant analogies that completely miss the point, and quite frankly, I haven't got the strength. Also, I have already abandoned my New Year's resolution not to engage with you on any legal issues. On the first day, already.
Happy New Year by the way. All Blues should have a great year even if we disagree on almost everything. :)
Essentially, what City are accused of isn't even illegal in UK Law, only in the PL's rules which they state are governed by UK Law.
I honestly believe you're being purposely obtuse. I stated:
Let me walk you through it... "Essentially, what City are accused of isn't even illegal in UK Law".
To my knowledge, the substantive charge is that they believe the "His Highness" mentioned in the stolen emails is Sheikh Mansour, & that he funneled equity funding through a bridging loan awarded to Etisalat from Jaber Mohammed, to Manchester City, disguised as Etisalat sponsorship.
Outside of the stolen emails & in terms of evidence, they've produced squat.
As I've previously stated, it doesn't matter what UEFA/PL accuse us of, proving it is a totally different matter.
Then I pointed out to you, is owner equity funding illegal in UK Law? No.
Is it illegal to pay an invoice on behalf of a third party? No.
Even if we did disguise owner equity funding as Etisalat sponsorship, would we have had to do this if UEFA hadn't introduce FFP as a blatant mechanism to stop City? No.
Again, you've introduced several frankly ridiculous episodes of hair splitting, I presume in an attempt to remain relevant in this conversation eg: If SM gave City equity funding, but we entered it into the ledger as sponsorship for another company, that's fraud?
I suppose technically yes, but there's a few problems your hair splitting has thrown up.
1. If not for FFP, why would SM need to disguise his owner equity funding in the first place? If he owned ANY other business in the UK, would this even be an issue?
2. Did Manchester City have a legal sponsorship contract with Etisalat, & did we discharged our duties to Etisalat as contracted?
You keep getting yourself hung up on what's in front of you, without considering the vast majority of the issues lies beyond the murky facade.
Again, UEFA/G14 can accuse us of what they like.
A. We had a sponsorship contract with Etisalat.
B. City issued an invoice with payment terms
C. Etisalat paid part of the invoice by using a third party bridging loan facility provided by UAE based financier, Jaber Mohammed.
D. City's invoice & payment terms were satisfied.
E. City carry out the sponsorship service for Etisalat in accordance with the contract.
F. City got paid. Etisalat got their service. The end!
I'm well aware of what UEFA & the PL are accusing City of in accordance to THEIR private members club rules, but as per the above A - F, where's the fraud?
And to sum up, what the PL & UEFA are alleging doesn't stack up because there was a sponsorship deal in place with Etisalat, so their only squabble is did Sheikh Mansour disguise equity funding as Etisalat sponsorship against their private members club rules?
City say no, & have the contracts & bank transfers to prove it.
Now perhaps you will finally accept, it matters little what UEFA/PL accuse us of. It doesn't stack up in UK Law, & if not for FFP (which has zero bearing in UK criminal Law & is only applicable in civil law based on breach of contract, which they so far don't have a hope in hell of proving), would we even need to be creative with our accounting?
I think it best for all that you re-avow your New Year Resolution, & go find something more productive to occupy yourself with. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
That's fraud?
I suppose technically yes, but there's a few problems your hair splitting has thrown up.
Where have I ever said they didn't accuse City of fraud? The excerpt you highlighted says no such thing. ¯\_(⊙_ʖ⊙)_/¯More productive than getting you to admit you were wrong. Most definitely. But one last try.
You have just said:
So you agree that the PL has effectively accused the club of fraud.
What are you whittling on about?
So we all agree that we are being accused of breaking premier league rules we all agree we all agree we are innocent we all agree what we are being accused of amounts to fraud but what your saying is we are not actually accused of fraud because ? They haven’t used the word or brought the police in ? Let’s say you’re right for moment and let’s leave aside the hairsplitting. I am sure I could come up with some analogy about stealing from a private club could be called something else etc by the club and then it wouldn’t be stealing but of course it would still be stealing and a crime etc. but let’s not go there what’s your actual point in relation to our case. That unless they use the word fraud time bar applies or the charges disappear what ?Where have I ever said they didn't accuse City of fraud? The excerpt you highlighted says no such thing. ¯\_(⊙_ʖ⊙)_/¯
What the PL are apparently accusing City of is disguising owner equity funding as Etisalat sponsorship. YOU said this amounts to THEM accusing us of fraud. To my knowledge, the PL's never used th term 'fraud', but that's what their charges amount to. Now where have I disagreed with this?
Fraud is a legal term which amounts to accusations of statutory illegality & criminality. The moment the PL use that term, they lose control of this process & it goes legal to a place where their bullshit won't stick. Hence why they carefully use the language of "breaches" to keep this whole farce in the sphere of UEFA & the Premier League.
What I've consistently done is compared UK Law to the PL's rules & state they don't apply in UK criminal law, because if they did, the SFO, HMRC, FCA & the local Plod would've already felt our collar. They haven't.
Essentially, is what City are being accused of illegal in UK Law, or merely illegal in PL Rules? This is the part where you fan away the fog & cut to the chase in the matter.
You're getting hung up on minutae when there are far bigger fundamental issues beyond the facade.
The PL & UEFA have offered nothing but a sentence in a stolen email as proof, which City claim was taken out of context, albeit this was time barred by CAS.
We've done nothing wrong in UK Law, & have adjusted our business in response to UEFA's attempts to neuter City with their corrupt FFP.
Hopefully this is now clear in your mind.
Agreed - some posters are obviously not aware of how boring it can be for others that just want to get real updatesThe best thing about finally getting to an ultimate conclusion on this whole affair will be no longer seeing this thread rise to the top with people arguing
Agreed - some posters are obviously not aware of how boring it can be for others that just want to get real updates
I'm not hung up on fraud, breaches or whatever the PL & onlookers choose to call it. I wanted answers & solutions to the 115 breaches we've allegedly committed. I've tried to keep very focused on this.I am sure I could come up with some analogy about stealing from a private club could be called something else etc by the club and then it wouldn’t be stealing but of course it would still be stealing and a crime etc. but let’s not go there what’s your actual point in relation to our case. That unless they use the word fraud time bar applies or the charges disappear what ?