PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[GaudinoMotors]

A lawyer calling accountants boring? Here is an example of the exciting life our most eminent KC:

LORD PANNICK: Can I come on to the fifth topic which is De Keyser and the other case law.
LADY HALE: Have I been mispronouncing that case all my adult life?
LORD PANNICK: Would your Ladyship like to tell me the correct --
LADY HALE: De Keyser.
LORD PANNICK: I will call it De Keyser.
LADY HALE: I may be wrong, I am often wrong.
LORD PANNICK: You say De Keyser, I say De Keyser.
LORD CLARKE: Down here we think it is De Keyser.
THE PRESIDENT: We can each stick to our own because the transcript will not give away what we have called it.
LORD PANNICK: It is my fifth topic, whatever it is called

She was certainly often wrong. But that didn't stop her. And they say accountants are creative - some of her judgmental leaps. Always a good read though.

 

[meltonblue]

I think they are talking about the conclusion in paragraph 289 on page 78

View attachment 105772

All that says is that the Etihad contract wasn't between related parties, was at fair value, fully completed by both parties, and that there was no evidence that there was any cover up after the DS leaks.

It's a pretty comprehensive debunking of UEFA's evidence in legal language and, like all such language, should be treated carefully but it, in no way, says anything about a witch-hunt or, for that matter says anything that could be interpreted as such.

The dangers of listening to people, no matter how well meaning they are, on youtube, I suppose confusing opinion with fact. It happens a lot, of course.

It’s the rest of the conclusion on page 79 that debunks UEFA’s evidence more than that paragraph, as those aren’t arguments that UEFA were putting forward anyway. I actually found it quite worrying when I read that paragraph the first time that only the majority of the panel presumed the agreement was negotiated at fair value - that was already accepted by both parties so I don’t get how the full panel couldn’t have agreed that!

Agree with the second para. Happens in the papers as much as YouTube!

 

[meltonblue]

Yep. I think the closest CAS got to calling it a witch hunt was when they said that some of the allegations were based on “innuendo”. Obviously that’s not the same as saying it’s a witch hunt but even if CAS believed it was, I think they have to be diplomatic and would never use such terminology.

I guess what I’m trying to say is that reading between the lines of the CAS verdict, they thought that a lot of the claims against us were laughable but they can’t come out and say that.

One of their key points was they thought that based on evidence that was only presented to them though and wasn’t available to Uefa, they agreed with Uefas position that they were right to prosecute.

 

[ArniArason]

Hypothetical example (and not necessarily relevant):
Sheikh Mansour invests 50M in City directly.
Sheikh Mansour gives 50M to Anonymous Sheikh Ltd, and Anonymous Sheikh Ltd invest 50M in City.

HMRC really don't care whether that money came from Sheikh Mansour.
PL FFP very much might do, as this may fall under disguised equity

Agreed. Back to my original point, they would need to try and find some way of evidencing this, as the books from CFG and the other companies wouldn't give any meaningful insight. There will not be an entry in the transfer from Anonymous Sheikh Ltd that says "Dodgy money from the boss". Therefore the PL would have to try and either evidence the reason for the transfer via other means, such as hacked emails or testiment from those involved, many of which would be external to CFG.

 

[mancboy]

My impression is that HMRC and PL requirements are different even though they overlap to some degree.

Hypothetical example (and not necessarily relevant):
Sheikh Mansour invests 50M in City directly.
Sheikh Mansour gives 50M to Anonymous Sheikh Ltd, and Anonymous Sheikh Ltd invest 50M in City.

HMRC really don't care whether that money came from Sheikh Mansour.
PL FFP very much might do, as this may fall under disguised equity.

**
I think the PL have now lost control of the proceedings.
The charges were released in a rush, needed correcting, and just before the govt white paper was due. The PL now need the investigation to last long enough to claim that they are effective in running themselves, i.e. the bill to pass.
The investigation panel will go through their process and the PL have to wait it out. I think getting as much exemption from the regulator is more important to some of the more powerful clubs than finding against City; muddying City's name is useful but not the big thing.

I have said it from day one , this was a fishing expedition by masters to show they could look after their own house while tarnishing citys reputation (in that case they succeeded), the problem was they expected city to take a pinch and when we refused they were stuck and ever since theyve been trying to back up quicker than a french tank and they are struggling to wangle their way out of it.

 

[mancboy]

Agreed. Back to my original point, they would need to try and find some way of evidencing this, as the books from CFG and the other companies wouldn't give any meaningful insight. There will not be an entry in the transfer from Anonymous Sheikh Ltd that says "Dodgy money from the boss". Therefore the PL would have to try and either evidence the reason for the transfer via other means, such as hacked emails or testiment from those involved, many of which would be external to CFG.

but the problem with this analogy is that these multi billionaires have investment vehicles with such a broad range of investments and involvements either directly or indirectly in so many businesses that you could broadly say that most equity is disguised in some way, for example it would be fair to say that etihad and emirates cross over in alot of ways involving flight routes, buying of planes, parts for planes etc, so broadly speaking are we saying that our sponsors being involved also with emirates indirectly gives us some level of power over arsenal?

 

[MillionMilesAway]

I have said it from day one , this was a fishing expedition by masters to show they could look after their own house while tarnishing citys reputation (in that case they succeeded), the problem was they expected city to take a pinch and when we refused they were stuck and ever since theyve been trying to back up quicker than a french tank and they are struggling to wangle their way out of it.

Quite possibly in its origins. Now the regulator has overtaken them as an important issue.

 

[mancboy]

Quite possibly in its origins. Now the regulator has overtaken them as an important issue.

its origins were incorrect tho which is another issue in of itself, the charges were rushed and incorrect and had to be amended which makes you think what really do they have if they cant get the original charges correct.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Maybe but I was asked

Only one thing to add, really. If the last few weeks have taught us anything, it is that sporting advantage leads to sporting sanction. I suppose you agree Chelsea obtained a sporting advantage by signing much-wanted players unfairly? I think hopes of a fine are misplaced whatever the mitigating factors. Anyway, not the place, I guess.

 

[halfcenturyup]

One of their key points was they thought that based on evidence that was only presented to them though and wasn’t available to Uefa, they agreed with Uefas position that they were right to prosecute.

Much the same position with the PL, I think.

 

[terraloon]

Only one thing to add, really. If the last few weeks have taught us anything, it is that sporting advantage leads to sporting sanction. I suppose you agree Chelsea obtained a sporting advantage by signing much-wanted players unfairly? I think hopes of a fine are misplaced whatever the mitigating factors. Anyway, not the place, I guess.

Selfish as I am I am happy that Everton are challenging their points deduction as it will for sure expose that statement from the IC that in effect a fine not being relevant when you have rich owners.

Of course Chelsea gained a sporting advantage it would be churlish to argue otherwise .
If you read the last paragraph of my posting I said and still believe that there will be a points deduction alongside a fine.
The extent of any deduction will be mitigated by way of self disclosure

 

[meltonblue]

Much the same position with the PL, I think.

I assume so too, although they seem to be going a bit further with disclosure of documents if the court cases so far are anything to go by.

 

[LeonardoDaVnci]

Have you ever noticed what amazing imaginations the dippers have ?

Last night I was talking to one who unfortunately lives in my apartment block. Now as far as your average dip goes just about everything wrong in the world is down to us and this includes the REAL reason why Klipperty has just thrown his toys out of the cot.

He said there are two (completely contradictory) rumours going round murkyside atm...

[1] Klipperty was told by Klanfield itk types that the chances are the PL charges will fail miserably to stop our march to world dominance. Consequently he decided he couldn't face the prospect of carrying on ie we've finally managed to break him.

[2] Klipperty was told by the Klanfield itk types that if we are shafted big time by the PL then FSG are going all out legal to get our titles revoked so the dips get retrospective trophies. And as a fine upstanding chap he had a complete melt down and told FSG he wants absolutely nothing to do with retro titles being awarded after they have been taken of fellow professionals. Yourgone thinks Pep and the players earnt the titles on the pitch fair and square and any sanctions should be against the owners only.

re [2] Everyone thinks you can punish owners without mentioning "fans", but hey ho who cares about them.

They do live very close to the sea, maybe its down to the salt levels in the atmosphere...

 

[Chris in London]

LORD PANNICK: I will call it a barm.

Mods, ban this fucker

Pannick knows his onions AND his muffins

 

[Kippax77]

Have you ever noticed what amazing imaginations the dippers have ?

Last night I was talking to one who unfortunately lives in my apartment block. Now as far as your average dip goes just about everything wrong in the world is down to us and this includes the REAL reason why Klipperty has just thrown his toys out of the cot.

He said there are two (completely contradictory) rumours going round murkyside atm...

[1] Klipperty was told by Klanfield itk types that the chances are the PL charges will fail miserably to stop our march to world dominance. Consequently he decided he couldn't face the prospect of carrying on ie we've finally managed to break him.

[2] Klipperty was told by the Klanfield itk types that if we are shafted big time by the PL then FSG are going all out legal to get our titles revoked so the dips get retrospective trophies. And as a fine upstanding chap he had a complete melt down and told FSG he wants absolutely nothing to do with retro titles being awarded after they have been taken of fellow professionals. Yourgone thinks Pep and the players earnt the titles on the pitch fair and square and any sanctions should be against the owners only.

re [2] Everyone thinks you can punish owners without mentioning "fans", but hey ho who cares about them.

They do live very close to the sea, maybe its down to the salt levels in the atmosphere...

Or heroin

 

[Dribble]

My impression is that HMRC and PL requirements are different even though they overlap to some degree.

Hypothetical example (and not necessarily relevant):
Sheikh Mansour invests 50M in City directly.
Sheikh Mansour gives 50M to Anonymous Sheikh Ltd, and Anonymous Sheikh Ltd invest 50M in City.

HMRC really don't care whether that money came from Sheikh Mansour.
PL FFP very much might do, as this may fall under disguised equity.

A brilliant & succinct analogy.

This is it in a nutshell. The difference between the PL's "Rules" & UK Law. The PL can use all the KC'S they want, it doesn't change a damn thing.

 

[Dribble]

Agreed. Back to my original point, they would need to try and find some way of evidencing this, as the books from CFG and the other companies wouldn't give any meaningful insight. There will not be an entry in the transfer from Anonymous Sheikh Ltd that says "Dodgy money from the boss". Therefore the PL would have to try and either evidence the reason for the transfer via other means, such as hacked emails or testiment from those involved, many of which would be external to CFG.

Hence the difference between the PL's balance of probabilities, & beyond all reasonable doubt in UK Law.

Even if the balance of probabilities were applied in Civil Law, how would the PL gather such evidence which is outside of their jurisdiction anyway?

They've done this on a wing & a prayer, hoping even if their witch hunt fails, the reputational damage done to City will suffice.

 

[Dribble]

but the problem with this analogy is that these multi billionaires have investment vehicles with such a broad range of investments and involvements either directly or indirectly in so many businesses that you could broadly say that most equity is disguised in some way, for example it would be fair to say that etihad and emirates cross over in alot of ways involving flight routes, buying of planes, parts for planes etc, so broadly speaking are we saying that our sponsors being involved also with emirates indirectly gives us some level of power over arsenal?

A very important point, & one that was raised by Ceferin, who said investment venture capitalist groups were of more concern, because anyone could be an investor, which won't show on their accounts or records.

Investment Co, is just that. Who invests in their funds is nowt to do with the PL. This is essentially what the PL are also accusing us of from my understanding, but under what law isn't HRH SM not allowed an investment portfolio?

 

[GSW Blue]

There was no wrongdoing.

If there was any wrongdoing it wasn’t us.

If we did do any wrongdoing we didn’t know it was wrongdoing and we got all the big trophies right.

 

[cheekybids]

Have you ever noticed what amazing imaginations the dippers have ?

Last night I was talking to one who unfortunately lives in my apartment block. Now as far as your average dip goes just about everything wrong in the world is down to us and this includes the REAL reason why Klipperty has just thrown his toys out of the cot.

He said there are two (completely contradictory) rumours going round murkyside atm...

[1] Klipperty was told by Klanfield itk types that the chances are the PL charges will fail miserably to stop our march to world dominance. Consequently he decided he couldn't face the prospect of carrying on ie we've finally managed to break him.

[2] Klipperty was told by the Klanfield itk types that if we are shafted big time by the PL then FSG are going all out legal to get our titles revoked so the dips get retrospective trophies. And as a fine upstanding chap he had a complete melt down and told FSG he wants absolutely nothing to do with retro titles being awarded after they have been taken of fellow professionals. Yourgone thinks Pep and the players earnt the titles on the pitch fair and square and any sanctions should be against the owners only.

re [2] Everyone thinks you can punish owners without mentioning "fans", but hey ho who cares about them.

They do live very close to the sea, maybe its down to the salt levels in the atmosphere...

Tell him it’s 1 & he is a ****……