PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

Thought it was supposedly independent,

We’re banjaxed then as Delooney works for the independent!!

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

If you get done speeding 4 times in the same journey it could still be 12 points and a TT99.

The severity does add up.

The court has discretion to find they were all committed ’on the same occasion’ and impose one set of three points.

Depends who you’ve got arguing your corner.

 

[foggy1974]

We’re banjaxed then as Delooney works for the independent!!

Delooney ??
Work ???

Does he still like French Fancies

 

[Elbow beards]

It did for the one who fired the shot!

Indeed

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

It did for the one who fired the shot!

The other feller got a posthumous pardon AND then had his conviction overturned so it’s not all bad.
And yer wokey liberals still complain that you can’t undo the death penalty……..

 

[I'm With Stupid]

Its probably coded language for City are better than Bayern now, and we are so pissed off about it we will say literally anything to go back to the good old days.

Ah Bayern. Who at one time were getting the highest commercial income in the world at something like 55% of their income (for most other teams it was like a third). And who were some of their sponsors? Allianz, Audi and Adidas, all of which had a stake in the club. But apparently they don't count as related parties, and no-one had a problem with a club that doesn't get anything like the coverage of the Premier League or La Liga having the highest commercial income, because they're not owned by Arabs.

ETA: They still had the highest commercial income of any club in 2022/23.

 

[halfcenturyup]

I've read both accounts of either ADUG or the Abu Dhabi Central Marketing Fund (or something like that) who made the payments, either directly or through Jaber Mohammed to Manchester City, hence why I was asking for clarification, as one is the majority owner of CFG & the other is a state owned concern.

Again I read the repayments were made by Etisalat to either ADUG, the Abu Dhabi Central Marketing Fund (whatever they're called), or Jaber Mohammed. I also found accounts saying Etihad made repayments to one or the other companies, but other reports not confirming if a repayment was ever made.

@Prestwich_Blue has done a brilliant job of unpicking all of this, so at least we all better understand who paid what to whom, when & why.

If (as it seems) all of this has already been litigated, it beggars belief that the PL have exhumed this 2014 corpse & are trying to breathe life into it AGAIN...

The funding of the sponsorships wasn't looked at in 2014. That was only looked at in 2019 after the der Spiegel leaks.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Would you mind asking the same question in the main thread? I’m not sure it helps to have a discussion on this thread as well.

Yep, this should be locked.

 

[Chris in London]

Yep, this should be locked.

I don't entirely agree with that, because some very knowledgable posters might have a lot to say about some of the things I've rather skipped over, eg the details of the sponsorship arrangements or the image rights payments.

But I do think that discussion of the ramifications of all this should proceed within the other thread, and if I'm asked direct questions I will ask for them to be repeated in the other thread.

 

[Chris in London]

Hypothetically, couldn't City just invite the SFO, HMRC & the police to look into these accusations with two intentions?

1. To prove we've not broken any UK Laws?

2. As a precursor to a possible defamation law suit?

I'd imagine if they found we'd not broken any UK Laws, this would pour a cold pail of putrid piss all over the PL's FFP/PSR breach allegations, making a public distinction between their private members club rules & UK Law.

Doubt it. It's not their job. You wouldn’t go to your local Nick and say “can you give me a certificate saying I’m not a crim." Proving a negative is notoriously difficult and I'm not sure that GMP or any other force would devote valuable resources to showing that no crimes had been committed. The best they could say, in any event, is that there is no evidence (or insufficient evidence) to show any crime has been committed.

I very much doubt as well that City would bring a libel claim arising out of these matters in any event. But even if they did, the absence of any criminal proceedings is rarely in itself sufficient to show there has been any libel because the allegation in a civil context has a lower standard of proof - ie Plod has to persuade a jury that it is beyond reasonable doubt that X committed an offence. If plod thinks it's more likely than not that X committed an offence, but it is unlikely that they would prove that to the criminal standard, charges would not be brought.

You have on a number of occasions likened the PL rules to the rules of a private members club, and if I may say so I don't think that the analogy is helpful. It is better if you think of the PL's rules as the terms of the contract between City and the PL. That is effectively what is at the heart of all this - an allegation we have breached the contract under which we compete in the PL. The reason this isn't proceeding in the civil courts is that the contract also provides for its own dispute resolution method, namely the independent panel. But that panel will also apply the laws of England generally (eg as regards limitation periods and the standard of proof) because that's what the contract also provides.

 

[argyle]

Hypothetically, couldn't City just invite the SFO, HMRC & the police to look into these accusations with two intentions?

1. To prove we've not broken any UK Laws?

2. As a precursor to a possible defamation law suit?

I'd imagine if they found we'd not broken any UK Laws, this would pour a cold pail of putrid piss all over the PL's FFP/PSR breach allegations, making a public distinction between their private members club rules & UK Law.

In this country you're innocent until proven guilty.

City don't have to prove they are innocent, it's for the PL to prove we are guilty.

 

[halfcenturyup]

I don't entirely agree with that, because some very knowledgable posters might have a lot to say about some of the things I've rather skipped over, eg the details of the sponsorship arrangements or the image rights payments.

But I do think that discussion of the ramifications of all this should proceed within the other thread, and if I'm asked direct questions I will ask for them to be repeated in the other thread.

Fair enough. Brace yourself, then :)

Good job, btw.

 

[halfcenturyup]

In this country you're innocent until proven guilty.

City don't have to prove they are innocent, it's for the PL to prove we are guilty.

Also, I said on day one of all this that I couldn't believe the PL was so stupid as to effectively allege fraud after what we know about the CAS case and what we assume about the evidence the PL has. I also suggested that no authority would touch this case with a bargepole. That is still my view and, even if it wasn't, no entity in its right mind, personal or corporate, invites a criminal investigation from the authorities. Such investigation would involve ten investigators pouring over the club's accounting records for years in situ and every entity has various skeletons in various closets. Also, I would imagine they have the right to demand information from external parties, which the PL doesn't have. It would be madness.

We should all just relax and let this process take its course. Unless the club has actually done what was alleged, which is, firstly, extremely unlikely and, secondly, mindbogglingly difficult to prove anyway with the resources the PL has, everything will be fine.

 

[salfordbluetrue]

It's this no appeal thing that worries me.

I am no lawyer, but the media were very quick to tell us there is no appeal procedure to CAS, which is right, but you can continue with an appeal, the appeal process puts a lot of pressure on the original panel, as with when City went to CAS, they were already informed City would go higher, so they were forced into going with the burden of proof, or being shown to have no independence.

 

[salfordbluetrue]

The funding of the sponsorships wasn't looked at in 2014. That was only looked at in 2019 after the der Spiegel leaks.

Pretty sure the funding was looked at when American airlines complained that our owners were state funding their aircraft in America, the leaks merely suggested this was the case.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Pretty sure the funding was looked at when American airlines complained that our owners were state funding their aircraft in America, the leaks merely suggested this was the case.

You have any links?

Edit: Not doubting you, but have never really followed that case.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

Pretty sure the funding was looked at when American airlines complained that our owners were state funding their aircraft in America, the leaks merely suggested this was the case.

Slight side note, but it's interesting how bankrolling an unprofitable business for years in search of market share is absolutely fine as long as it's a private billionaire or private equity firm doing it, but as soon as the state is doing the funding, it's suddenly an issue. Unless that private business happens to be a football club, of course.

 

[Skrastins]

Where are development that were said 2 weeks ago ?

 

[urban genie]

Hypothetically, couldn't City just invite the SFO, HMRC & the police to look into these accusations with two intentions?

1. To prove we've not broken any UK Laws?

2. As a precursor to a possible defamation law suit?

I'd imagine if they found we'd not broken any UK Laws, this would pour a cold pail of putrid piss all over the PL's FFP/PSR breach allegations, making a public distinction between their private members club rules & UK Law.

I Doubt it, we have been accused in an internal business matter between the Prem and one of its members, only if they can prrove guilt of fraud and wrong doing would/could it be passed on to authorities.

At present the HMRC, SFO and police are not accusing us of anything or feel need to investigate us for any wrong doing, that is up to the prem to prove, then they may get involved.

 

[Mad Eyed Screamer]

If you get done speeding 4 times in the same journey it could still be 12 points and a TT99.

The severity does add up.

It all depends if it is a Manchester United company car with 4 employees of the club inside and non can recall who was driving at that particular time....