PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Eebo said:
I know they can lend to club, but it is the profit and loss that is used for FFP so shareholder investment is capital rather than P&L so how does that help?

Abramovich lent the cash to Chelsea, and the Sheikh largely invested as equity, but FFP is designed to stop rich owners investing through either route. Hence why we were charged by UEFA - we were accused of putting owner money in as sponsorship.

If loans or equity investment are allowed vs FFP then there would have been no reason for us to be accused of doing this as the Sheikh could simply have made direct loans or equity investment.
Click to expand...
The sheik lent to us and converted to equity but that was before ffp.
Now, I think a loan used for infrastructure free of fpp works as it frees up space on the P&L for all other funds to be used for items subject to ffp.
 
KS55 said:
The sheik lent to us and converted to equity but that was before ffp.
Now, I think a loan used for infrastructure free of fpp works as it frees up space on the P&L for all other funds to be used for items subject to ffp.
Click to expand...
It only frees it up if it was set aside for infrastructure in the first place though
 
halfcenturyup said:
They can spend on infrastructure, not wages and salaries (except to the extent their P/L allows it).

If I understand it, the 300 million is for fixing OT and Carrington.
Click to expand...
£300M won't go far, the dippers spent £50M just on the feasibility for a new ground according to their accounts, or did they ???????
 
projectriver said:
Nothing is safe to assume. The relevant date for limitations could be subject to extensive submission. If the panel believes it is all concealed dishonesty the limitations may not apply at all. But otherwise a lot of matters could be limitation barred again.
Click to expand...

Would the publishing date of der Spiegel ever be considered the statute of limitations “start date”? Or would it be when City provided their own copies of the emails to the PL when requested because of the investigation stemming from the der spiegel articles?
 
domalino said:
Would the publishing date of der Spiegel ever be considered the statute of limitations “start date”? Or would it be when City provided their own copies of the emails to the PL when requested because of the investigation stemming from the der spiegel articles?
Click to expand...
It’s possible that that date started the clock for PL to bring a claim on those matters and that then gave the PL 6 years which they were within.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Does anyone think there might be some fraud involved?
Click to expand...
Man City chairman Al Mubarak: We absolutely regret Super League ...
 
When we are cleared & it becomes apparent that the execs of Rags & Dippers asked potential CEOs about City & the possibility of laying charges against City, would this be considered corruption?

What actions could be taken?

(I’ll accept any sentence with nuclear)
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Does anyone think there might be some fraud involved?
Click to expand...

OK. I couldn't resist. You trouble-maker.

No.

And I don't think the PL think so, either.

And if there was something that, under a strict legal defintion, could be considered fraudulent, it wouldn't affect the true and fair view given by the accounts anyway and so the most serious breaches fall away and we are left with some issues of how the numbers were presented to the PL.

Now I'll shut up again :)
 
Last edited:
projectriver said:
It’s possible that that date started the clock for PL to bring a claim on those matters and that then gave the PL 6 years which they were within.
Click to expand...

Ok now I'm confused. Surely any limitation, if it applies, is defined in some way. I.e it is not any 6 years at any point, it is 6 years back from the start of any investigation. Isn't that the whole point, of limiting something back the way. It makes no sense to give a 6 year limitation ahead to an investigation starting, that's not a limitation of any kind really.

edit, there is quite a bit of subsequent discussion on this which may make any response moot.
 
Last edited:
Coatigan said:
Ok now I'm confused. Surely any limitation, if it applies, is defined in some way. I.e it is not any 6 years at any point, it is 6 years back from the start of any investigation. Isn't that the whole point, of limiting something back the way. It makes no sense to give a 6 year limitation ahead to an investigation starting, that's not a limitation of any kind really.
Click to expand...
It is defined in some way, namely under section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980, which states that the period of limitation shall not begin to run until discovery of the fraud [by the PL], or [when the PL] could with reasonable diligence have discovered it.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
It is defined in some way, namely under section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980, which states that the period of limitation shall not begin to run until discovery of the fraud [by the PL], or [when the PL] could with reasonable diligence have discovered it.
Click to expand...
In which case domalino's point is right, Der Spiegel articles 'could' be argued as the start of the limitation. As could the start of the PL investigation. But the one thing that doesn't make sense is it being 6 years for them to carry out their investigation, with no limitations of what is actually being investigated.

Unless I have completely misunderstood the act. Or river's post.
 
Coatigan said:
In which case domalino's point is right, Der Spiegel articles 'could' be argued as the start of the limitation. As could the start of the PL investigation. But the one thing that doesn't make sense is it being 6 years for them to carry out their investigation, with no limitations of what is actually being investigated.

Unless I have completely misunderstood the act. Or river's post.
Click to expand...
Well of course it depends what trigger event(s) the PL are relying upon . Many have inferred it relates to the stuff associated with the Der Spiegel articles but that is a conclusion that is not assisted by the lack of meaningful particulars (or evidence) in the public domain relating to the charges.

So based on the current position about lack of particulars it’s pretty much impossible to evaluate when the limitation period begins and ends - and given the reasonable diligence arm of section 32 (notably distinguished from ‘all due diligence’) then there may be further arguments around limitation relating to that, possibly depending on what period the particular charge(s) relates to.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Well of course it depends what trigger event(s) the PL are relying upon . Many have inferred it relates to the stuff associated with the Der Spiegel articles but that is a conclusion that is not assisted by the lack of meaningful particulars (or evidence) in the public domain relating to the charges.

So based on the current position about lack of particulars it’s pretty much impossible to evaluate when the limitation period begins and ends - and given the reasonable diligence arm of section 32 (notably distinguished from ‘all due diligence’) then there may be further arguments around limitation relating to that, possibly depending on what period the particular charge(s) relates to.
Click to expand...

Thanks, and in fairness, I only really am discussing my understanding of the logic of it, rather than specifics and predictions of what will happen here. I.e arguing one or the other makes more sense doesn't mean I expect it to be the case. River's post is at odds with all of the above though, at least with how it is worded, and (to me) seems to change the whole concept.
 
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