PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

halfcenturyup said:
This is really the only explanation, imo, why they are continuing. They started the investigation, found some things that needed explanation but the club didn't provide the proof to support the explanations because they aren't required by the PL rules, or by UK law so to do, it being information held externally. So what do the PL do? Finish the investigation without a proper conclusion, which is a terrible situation for a governing body? Or continue with the disciplinary process, incur huge legal fees, and then "lose" the case, which is a terrible situation for a governing body.

The club has stitched the PL up good and proper over this, I think. We really have some clever people running the club.
Click to expand...
This perfectly encapsulates my take on it too. It is by far the most likely explanation.
 
halfcenturyup said:
This is really the only explanation, imo, why they are continuing. They started the investigation, found some things that needed explanation but the club didn't provide the proof to support the explanations because they aren't required by the PL rules, or by UK law so to do, it being information held externally. So what do the PL do? Finish the investigation without a proper conclusion, which is a terrible situation for a governing body? Or continue with the disciplinary process, incur huge legal fees, and then "lose" the case, which is a terrible situation for a governing body.

The club has stitched the PL up good and proper over this, I think. We really have some clever people running the club.
Click to expand...
Just like most stupid organisations and people they have found themselves in a hole and instead of looking for a ladder they have decided to keep on digging, can you imagine how stupid they would have looked if after city biting back they backed up and said tbf we dont have anything concrete we're just trying to look tough to stop independent regulation by keeping it tied up with independent panels etc they have shamefully passed the buck while besmirching the clubs name, they really are a bunch of chancers who have found themselves so far out of their depth its untrue, masters is a primary school kid trying to discuss financial policy with phd students and it shows everywhere.
 
WRicko said:
I re read your post and at first I thought you where say the word fraud was not used because it was not fraud but I see that you say the word fraud is not used because it’s about breach of contract but why have they chickened out of using the word fraud ?

Final point I should have made in the previous post

Why has it taken so long if they actually believe we have done what is alleged ?
Click to expand...

So I am ignoring your first response as it completely missed the point, other than to say:

Research for yourself the requirement to report fraud rather than ask me to justify it. I freely admit I may be wrong about anything, but you think I am wrong, show me why.

Imho, the SFO isn't going to get involved if there is an ongoing civil case which will determine if there has been a fraud or not. Why would they? They can wait until it's finished, review the evidence presented in the report and then decide whether or not to proceed on the basis of a higher level of proof. I doubt they have the time or resources just to open cases based on what is in the press.

And now your second response.

They haven't "chickened" out of using the word fraud. There is no need to. They have followed their procedure and simply referred to the IC a list of rules they allege have been breached.

And the reason it's taking so long? Every legal person in here said it would take 2, 3, 4 years and that is what is happening. Simply put, the PL has brought forward a complicated case.

Also, I never said I thought the PL themselves think they will prove these allegations. My hypothesis is that the club put them in a position where they had to shit or get off the can. And they chose to shit.
 
halfcenturyup said:
That is nothing to do with why the allegations won't stick, imo. The PL simply won't have the evidence to prove any of their more serious allegations. They don't have access to where any incriminating evidence would be maintained and, even if they had a whistleblower, which I can't imagine they do, he would have to have, for example, contracts signed by the various parties which show the conspiracy that is alleged, otherwise it is one man's word against the club's "irrefutable evidence". No one with access to that level of information will be welching on Mansour, even if the club/owner/sponsors did what is alleged, which I can't imagine for one moment they did.

I have my own theory about the PL's actions. the club's actions, the pressure from other clubs and Masters' weakness and the likely outcome of the panel and it all points to exoneration on everything except, maybe some missed disclosures.

All imho, of course.
Click to expand...
The majority are pinning there hopes on time barred evidence being fraudulent which is just hilarious
 
Just before I went to sleep last night I read a tweet laughing over a post from 4-4-2 magazine saying we were about to be found out guilty, I never read the 4-4-2 article.

Anybody else seen it or read it?
 
Chappie said:
They may not use the word fraud,but that is what the allegations imply,however you wish to dress it up.
Bar the non compliance allegation, which of the allegations will not be considered a fraudulent action by the club if they are found to be true ?
Click to expand...

You missed the point. Read it again.
 
halfcenturyup said:
So I am ignoring your first response as it completely missed the point, other than to say:

Research for yourself the requirement to report fraud rather than ask me to justify it. I freely admit I may be wrong about anything, but you think I am wrong, show me why.

Imho, the SFO isn't going to get involved if there is an ongoing civil case which will determine if there has been a fraud or not. Why would they? They can wait until it's finished, review the evidence presented in the report and then decide whether or not to proceed on the basis of a higher level of proof. I doubt they have the time or resources just to open cases based on what is in the press.

And now your second response.

They haven't "chickened" out of using the word fraud. There is no need to. They have followed their procedure and simply referred to the IC a list of rules they allege have been breached.

And the reason it's taking so long? Every legal person in here said it would take 2, 3, 4 years and that is what is happening. Simply put, the PL has brought forward a complicated case.

Also, I never said I thought the PL themselves think they will prove these allegations. My hypothesis is that the club put them in a position where they had to shit or get off the can. And they chose to shit.
Click to expand...
This is the bit I can't get my head round if it isn't fraud a good lump of the allegations (not charges) fall on a time bar so surely fraud has to be proved before their case can continue?
 
Prophet of Doom said:
you are a legal man - are you telling me that PL would have proceeded the way they have even if they were advised their case wasn’t strong enough ?

Four years to build a case and they went ahead even if advised what they have is not strong enough ?
Click to expand...

No, I am telling you that they may have done. it depends on what is motivating them.

It is not unprecedented for a claim to be zealously pursued (or defended) even though the prospects of success are not great.
 
KS55 said:
Actually, if the SFO or others discovered a fraud that the PL clearly knew about but did nothing, the PL would get a public kicking. To protect themselves they should always report a suspected fraud irrespective of the legal duty.
Click to expand...
Possibly, but the PL aren't at the stage where they can determine that a fraud has effectively taken place because they haven't been presented with the irrefutable evidence yet. The time to officially report it would be at the end of the process, surely? Or would you have expected the PL to have reported it already? You have a better background in this than I do, I think. Interested in your opinion.
 
ganganvince said:
This is the bit I can't get my head round if it isn't fraud a good lump of the allegations (not charges) fall on a time bar so surely fraud has to be proved before their case can continue?
Click to expand...
I never got an understandable answer on that either. It's a bit horse and cart. Time barred if not fraud, so have to look at fraud to check if you have to look at it. I think, and @Chris in London is good at blasting me if I am wrong, that the PL will have to show the club deliberately concealed the events in order for the limitation to start in 2018 and make them active. So maybe a quick review to check each allegation on that basis before looking in detail?
 
Chris in London said:
No, I am telling you that they may have done. it depends on what is motivating them.

It is not unprecedented for a claim to be zealously pursued (or defended) even though the prospects of success are not great.
Click to expand...
Not only is it not unprecedented, it is not even uncommon for regulators to pursue spurious cases, solicitors, qc's etc dont make a fortune by only taking on slam dunk cases.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Possibly, but the PL aren't at the stage where they can determine that a fraud has effectively taken place because they haven't been presented with the irrefutable evidence yet. The time to officially report it would be at the end of the process, surely? Or would you have expected the PL to have reported it already? You have a better background in this than I do, I think. Interested in your opinion.
Click to expand...
I was talking generally rather than our specific case. Despite the charges implying a fraud by City and others, I don’t think the PL has enough yet to conclude a fraud has taken place, so I don't think they should have alerted the authorities already. The issue is in the public realm and that is enough. The SFO etc will be looking to see what conclusion the panel reach but without any expectation of a criminal case developing.
 
halfcenturyup said:
So I am ignoring your first response as it completely missed the point, other than to say:

Research for yourself the requirement to report fraud rather than ask me to justify it. I freely admit I may be wrong about anything, but you think I am wrong, show me why.

Imho, the SFO isn't going to get involved if there is an ongoing civil case which will determine if there has been a fraud or not. Why would they? They can wait until it's finished, review the evidence presented in the report and then decide whether or not to proceed on the basis of a higher level of proof. I doubt they have the time or resources just to open cases based on what is in the press.

And now your second response.

They haven't "chickened" out of using the word fraud. There is no need to. They have followed their procedure and simply referred to the IC a list of rules they allege have been breached.

And the reason it's taking so long? Every legal person in here said it would take 2, 3, 4 years and that is what is happening. Simply put, the PL has brought forward a complicated case.

Also, I never said I thought the PL themselves think they will prove these allegations. My hypothesis is that the club put them in a position where they had to shit or get off the can. And they chose to shit.
Click to expand...
With regard to the 4 years and taking so long part I in no way take that as the PL having spent ages getting together a thorough case. Imo up until the June 21 hearing result the PL probably had very little information at all and maybe just the der speigel stuff. The case notes from then indicate their had been little progress at that point.
 
halfcenturyup said:
I never got an understandable answer on that either. It's a bit horse and cart. Time barred if not fraud, so have to look at fraud to check if you have to look at it. I think, and @Chris in London is good at blasting me if I am wrong, that the PL will have to show the club deliberately concealed the events in order for the limitation to start in 2018 and make them active. So maybe a quick review to check each allegation on that basis before looking in detail?
Click to expand...
My point is though that fraud is criminal and only the courts can decide if criminal activity has taken place.
 
mancboy said:
Not only is it not unprecedented, it is not even uncommon for regulators to pursue spurious cases, solicitors, qc's etc dont make a fortune by only taking on slam dunk cases.
Click to expand...

It seems to me another common fallacy on here is that QCs won't take on cases they may lose because it damages their reputation. On the contrary, I think reputations are made by how well they present their case, especially high profile cases, not by whether they win or not.

Of course, the best QCs can pick and choose. And they don't like to lose, I imagine. I am imagining a QC online forum with threads like our post-match threads when we lose :)
 
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