PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

I'm With Stupid said:
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.
Click to expand...
Now in really confused.

UK government provide billions in sweeteners to businesses all the time!
 
Jung the foreman said:
I still don't see 115 charges. You say three charges over ten seasons. So I only see thirty charges. Where do the rest come from?
Click to expand...
If (for example) it was found we had dodgy payments to 20 players and all twenty players were with the club for 3 seasons, that is 60 charges. One charge, per player, per season they were with us.
So all we need to do is challenge one of those 60 charges. If City are successful on that first charge, then all 60 charges fail, assuming they are all on the same basis.
 
Last edited:
Chris in London said:
Mods, this has been a request on and off in the 115 Charges thread for some time. Feel free to move but I thought it might warrant a thread of its own. The idea here is that the information is essentially factual with very little/no opinion thrown into the mix. There are also some significant simplifications where technical legal/accountancy matters are concerned.



Why 115 Charges?

There are not 115 wholly different charges. There are essentially three charges:

  • City overstated their revenue
  • City understated their expenses
  • City have failed to comply with various regulatory requirements
The first relates principally to the allegation that the sponsorship from Etihad and Etisalat was in fact disguised equity funding from ADUG

The second relates to the Al Jazira ‘second contract’ for Roberto Mancini and image rights players for (IIRC) Yaya Toure in particular

The third includes a series of allegations that we have not complied with the PL’s FFP rules, UEFAs FFP rules and the PLs requirement that we should co-operate with an ongoing investigation.

It is however alleged that each of these alleged offences is committed across multiple seasons. One separate charge relates to each instance of alleged wrongdoing over each of the 10 seasons or so that the charges cover.

If you want an analogy, imagine you drove from London to Manchester at a steady 100mph and got caught by 12 speeding cameras. Each represents a separate charge, but they are different aspects of the same basic allegation.



Do these allegations amount to fraud?

The allegations that we have knowingly misrepresented the accounts across multiple seasons are tantamount to allegations of fraud. This is because the allegation is that City's directors signed off accounts knowing that they did not represent a true and fair view of City's finances. That is an offence under the Companies Act. So while the PL have not accused us outright of fraud, the conduct they are alleging against the club would, if provided, amount to fraudulent conduct.

"I'm not saying you're guilty of arson, but I saw you set fire to your own house."

Moreover, it is inherent in the charges that other companies who have included the amounts of (say) the sponsorship deals in full must have conspired with City to ensure that the true figure was artificially (and dishonestly) inflated. Or, in the case of Al Jazirah, that the employment contract with Mancini was a complete sham. This too is essentially an allegation of fraudulent conduct.

The allegations of regulatory breaches (eg non-co-operation) are not fraudulent in their nature.



What is the standard of proof?

The standard of proof applied by independent panel will be the balance of probabilities. This means that the tribunal will need to consider whether it is more likely than not that City have committed the conduct alleged against them.

However, because the allegations are serious, the evidence which it would take to satisfy the panel to that standard would need to be correspondingly cogent. It is inherently unlikely that the boards of several large companies would all conspire to commit several legal and regulatory breaches, so to satisfy the panel that this is what actually happened, the evidence of that will need to be particularly cogent.



What is the evidence relied on by the PL?

The PL investigation was opened very shortly after the UEFA investigation, and appeared to lie dormant while the case with UEFA/CAS ran its course. It is not known that there is any more evidence available to the PL than was available to UEFA, namely the Der Spiegel leaked emails.

That said, the PL pursued numerous disclosure applications against City which were successful. We simply don’t know what further evidence there may be.



Are any of the allegations time-barred?

Yes. UEFA’s FFP rules had a 5 year time-bar, which had expired in the case of some of the charges. There is no similar time-bar under the PL’s rules but the relationship between City and the PL is essentially that they are both parties to the same contract. English law says that you have 6 years in most cases to bring a claim for a breach of contract.

The charges were brought at the beginning of 2023, so on the face of it, a lot of the claims relating to anything preceding season 16/17 will be time-barred. However, there is a principle that if the breach of contract was knowingly concealed, that six year period will begin not when the breach actually occurred but when the complainant became aware of it (or, if earlier, should reasonably have become aware of it.)

So the question of the seriousness of the charges and the question of what is time barred go hand in hand. The negative, from City’s point of view, is that the time-bar is not necessarily a complete defence to the more historic charges (which is actually most of them). The positive, from City’s point of view, is that to succeed on the most serious charges, cogent evidence will be needed to show that City have committed the breaches alleged. If that evidence is not there, the charges will fail and would be time-barred anyway.



Are City in danger?

It depends on how you define ‘danger.’ Based on the evidence that exists within the public domain (eg the evidence in the 'opens skies' case in the USA) it is very difficult to see how the PL can possibly succeed, at least on the most serious charges. The non-co-operation charges may be less difficult to establish, not least because City took the PL to the courts in a number of respects.

That said, (a) we don’t know what (if any) further evidence the PL may have, and (b) one possibility is that the PL are pursuing us precisely because they think the evidence they can point to will be sufficient to make the charges stick.

What is certain is that if the charges are proved, or substantially proved, the sanctions applied against City would be very very serious. Everton have had a points deduction of 10 points on the basis of one admitted allegation of breaching FFP in one season. If the charges are proved, it is difficult to see that anything short of relegation (whether by means of a massive points deduction or otherwise) AND a massive fine would meet the justice of the case.

If the non-cooperation charge alone was proved but all the others were dismissed, I would anticipate a fine. A points deduction for a non-co-operation charge would in my view be somewhat disproportionate.


Can City appeal to CAS if they lose?

No. There is however a right of appeal to a further Independent Panel. They would not be starting again and looking at all the same evidence from the beginning, however, they would be concentrating on whether the first panel have made an error of law or arrived at a decision that is perverse on the evidence before the first panel.

Thereafter there is no further appeal but there is a right of further legal challenge based on errors of law,

As a practical proposition it is unlikely if City lose at the first stage and their appeal is also dismissed, that (unless both panels have got it disastrously wrong) that there would be much prospect of success in a further legal challenge but you never know.



If fraud is alleged, why haven’t City been charged by the criminal authorities?

It would have been unusual for (say) the Serious Fraud Office to commence an investigation in a case like this where what is alleged is a breach of the PL’s internal rules. However they tend not to announce it from the rooftops when they are commencing an investigation, especially if that would result in (for instance) evidence being destroyed.

If the charges are proved (and there is no appeal), it is quite probable that a criminal allegation would be launched. Given how high-profile this case is, it would be difficult for the SFO to resist the pressure to launch their own investigation.

However, the standard of proof in a criminal case is even higher – it is beyond reasonable doubt – and the age of some of the charges means that it would be very difficult to persuade a jury that the accounts signed off 12 or 13 years ago were knowingly/fraudulently mis-stated. Moreover, if City lost it is almost inevitable that there would be an appeal, which would mean that the events in question were even more historic.

Never say never, but criminal charges seems very very unlikely even if the PL charges are successful.



Anyway, that’s enough from me. Anyone else with answers to FAQs, feel free to add them.
Click to expand...
Thanks I will copy and paste every time I see any hate on our club....
 
Chris,

A wonderful succint post.Just a few questions.

1. Is this a summary on publically available information or from another source ? If from another source I appreciate the fact you will not disclose that !! A few other well respected posters like PB have made similar comments, so it perhaps would be important in such a clarification to explain how (if you can) you came to this conclusion.
2.The potential allegation of fraud.Not a lawyer, but a friend of mine was accused of fraud.Later exonerated.This involved an unexpected attendance by the police who confiscated his PCs laptops and all mobile phones in the house.I would imagine if the SFO had any inkling of fraud they would surely by now have acted in a similar fashion ?
3. The Roberto payments.Would Roberto have to be involved in any discussion in this matter, and if he or others decline,especially as they live abroad, does that not make the matter that much more complicated in terms of proof ? Just wondering if the PL have approached RM and he has said nothing to do with me.I would imagine his input would be critical in any charges against City.

Once again thank you.I am absolutely not questioning your veracity, but point one in particular would be useful to have an answer to !!

Bert
 
Chris in London said:
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.
Click to expand...
In terms of contracts, don't they have to be in accordance with UK Law?

EG: "In our street racing contract, you're limited to speeds of 100mph, but we clocked you at 110mph on Hyde Road, so you're in breach."

If the police picked up on this, could the street racer in breach not say it's none of their business, it's a private contractual dispute?

I looked at the CPS definition for Malicious reporting, which made me look again at several of the carefully crafted statements by the PL, which verge on accusations of "fraud" (I'm not saying you're guilty of arson, but I saw you set fire to your own house).

Where's the line drawn between essentially an inference of fraud in a contract between parties, & the CPS definition Malicious reporting, in the public interest (the courts deemed the issue could be reported on), leading to wasting police time & reputational damage?

The scenarios I put forward are done so for clarification by BM legal/finance experts (of which I'm not one). I'm merely a fan who's sick & tired of the bullshit & just wants to get back to the football.

In truth I have an element of legal & finance training as part of my job which gives me a VERY light laymans working knowledge.

When situations like this arise, like many City fans struggling to get their heads around this, I take my head out of the weeds, stand back & take a global over all view of what's happening.

Cutting to the chase, FFP/PSR is a bullshit witch hunt specifically crafted to stop Manchester City Football Club, & to protect the G14 & Spuds from ever being challenged. That's the short & tall of it.

Sometimes we've gotta stop getting dragged into football's silly legal/contractual/accounting games & call out FFP/PSR for the protectionist con it is.

Most opposition fans couldn't care less about the detailed minutiae contained in this thread, because in their minds we've been correctly accused of cheating, dominated football unfairly & only won what we have because we're crooks, & there's little any of us can say which'll change their minds.

Ultimately my suggestion of calling in the authorities to look at our business because of all the spurious public allegations made, which are causing huge reputational damage & hurt to our fans, can be characterised by the bolded type in your quote above.

That's all it takes to switch the spotlight of guilt by Manchester City, to the feeling of a witch hunt by the PL.

If the UK courts deemed the PL tribunal could be reported on because its in the public interest, surely City calling in the Feds to see if we have a criminal case to answer, would settle this farce legally, which would be in the public interest & considered a fair conclusion?
 
Last edited:
halfcenturyup said:
You have any links?

Edit: Not doubting you, but have never really followed that case.
Click to expand...
www.thenationalnews.com

Etihad Airways: Do not prejudge outcome of US ‘open skies’ review | The National

Etihad said it hoped no one would prejudge the outcome of a review of claims made by US airlines, and that it was committed to setting the record straight on what it called 'unsubstantiated allegations'.
www.thenationalnews.com www.thenationalnews.com

And 4 years later:-

skift.com

U.S. and United Arab Emirates Reach Deal to Solve Open Skies Spat

Emirates and Etihad Airways will use globally-accepting accounting practices for annual reports and open their books to outsiders as part of an agreement negotiated by diplomats from the United States and the United Arab Emirates that could end years of friction.
skift.com skift.com
 
I read a brief article from Sky last week that stated that of the charges, some 56 (or thereabouts) are for non cooperation. This seems to me that the non cooperation charges are in relation to the number of alleged financial irregularities charges so that the PL are saying because City are not providing the information, the PL cannot prove the irregularities, even if there is nothing to provide, hence the non cooperation charges. Does this make sense?
Is this anyone else's take on the non cooperation?
 
Hoghead said:
I read a brief article from Sky last week that stated that of the charges, some 56 (or thereabouts) are for non cooperation. This seems to me that the non cooperation charges are in relation to the number of alleged financial irregularities charges so that the PL are saying because City are not providing the information, the PL cannot prove the irregularities, even if there is nothing to provide, hence the non cooperation charges. Does this make sense?
Is this anyone else's take on the non cooperation?
Click to expand...
I know we've had a few court room appearances where we've challenged their right to demand certain information and (I think) their right to even question anything, would the court room challenge add to the 'failure to co-operate' charges?
 
Hoghead said:
I read a brief article from Sky last week that stated that of the charges, some 56 (or thereabouts) are for non cooperation. This seems to me that the non cooperation charges are in relation to the number of alleged financial irregularities charges so that the PL are saying because City are not providing the information, the PL cannot prove the irregularities, even if there is nothing to provide, hence the non cooperation charges. Does this make sense?
Is this anyone else's take on the non cooperation?
Click to expand...
Seems to me “non-cooperation” is going to be the fallback charge that is used to find us “guilty” of something.

Others won’t care that it has nothing to do with doing anything illegal, or “cheating,” but it didn’t stop them with UEFA and CAS.

City fans will just have to get over the fact that those who choose to ignore reality and still use the term “cheat” if we are exonerated will never change. To them, ignorance is bliss.
 
Centurions said:
www.thenationalnews.com

Etihad Airways: Do not prejudge outcome of US ‘open skies’ review | The National

Etihad said it hoped no one would prejudge the outcome of a review of claims made by US airlines, and that it was committed to setting the record straight on what it called 'unsubstantiated allegations'.
www.thenationalnews.com www.thenationalnews.com

And 4 years later:-

skift.com

U.S. and United Arab Emirates Reach Deal to Solve Open Skies Spat

Emirates and Etihad Airways will use globally-accepting accounting practices for annual reports and open their books to outsiders as part of an agreement negotiated by diplomats from the United States and the United Arab Emirates that could end years of friction.
skift.com skift.com
Click to expand...

Thanks, but it was more the "our owners" comment. Thought I had missed something ....
 
Berts Neck said:
Chris,

A wonderful succint post.Just a few questions.

1. Is this a summary on publically available information or from another source ? If from another source I appreciate the fact you will not disclose that !! A few other well respected posters like PB have made similar comments, so it perhaps would be important in such a clarification to explain how (if you can) you came to this conclusion.
2.The potential allegation of fraud.Not a lawyer, but a friend of mine was accused of fraud.Later exonerated.This involved an unexpected attendance by the police who confiscated his PCs laptops and all mobile phones in the house.I would imagine if the SFO had any inkling of fraud they would surely by now have acted in a similar fashion ?
3. The Roberto payments.Would Roberto have to be involved in any discussion in this matter, and if he or others decline,especially as they live abroad, does that not make the matter that much more complicated in terms of proof ? Just wondering if the PL have approached RM and he has said nothing to do with me.I would imagine his input would be critical in any charges against City.

Once again thank you.I am absolutely not questioning your veracity, but point one in particular would be useful to have an answer to !!

Bert
Click to expand...
Would you mind re posting this in the main thread? Happy to answer, but just want to keep as much of the discussion as possible in the one thread
 
urban genie said:
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.
Click to expand...
The premier league have affectively accused us of fraud it gos beyond internal rules
 
I think thee are two things we as fans could do. We could make a complaint against the club to the police. Anyone can make an allegation to the police. I think it has happened to a few celbs and politicians by members of the public with other motives where a possible crime has been committed to some unrelated to the complaining person but the incident was in the public domain. The police would then have to investigate and clear or not city.

I don’t think this is a good idea risks wasting police time and what if we have done something wrong.

However we could write to our MPs and lay out the issues especially law point around the allegations but also the other technical stuff I don’t think MPs have a clue
 
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