It is unlikely here that the SoL arguments could be taken as a separate hearing because they are intertwined with the underlying substantive matters. So it will all be assessed as part of the IC. Lawyers do commonly argue SoL and yes there has probably been correspondence on the point both before and since charge.Cheers @projectriver - question, do the limitation arguments always take place during the tribunal itself? Or can arguments be heard in a separate prior hearing?
Presumably a prior hearing would save time if it negates the need to go through rafts of evidence? Or do they need to go through the rafts of evidence first to know if limitation applies?
Additionally in the (very) few corporate legal processes I’ve been involved in, lawyers have argued between themselves whether limitation applies to certain aspects of the allegations. Could the same be happening here through channels outside of the tribunal itself?
I’m presuming the tribunal would look very dimly upon a situation whereby a case is brought to them with elements that quite clearly do not meet the limitation threshold due the vast amount of time (and expense) this would waste.
Mate, no offence but I think you're totally overreacting here.
Let's deal with this point by point... What empirical evidence has Burnham ignored, in what's supposedly a confidential process?
I'd rather not. If you're unhappy about Mayor Andy Burnham not coming out & saying City are innocent having not seen any evidence & ahead of a hearing, where do we draw the line?It’s hardly over reacting I just said he was a cock & then had to explain.
Stefan was very vocal about the points he was deliberately ignoring whilst leading the pack. Check Stefan’s Twitter if you want to see.
Nope. It seems to me the PL can't rely on the information CAS says it reviewed to resolve their problems. They could have taken into account the CAS conclusions in their investigation and they chose not to. Once they did that, they needed the third party information themselves. I am guessing the club hasn't given it to them.
What they would have had is more access to the books and records than UEFA had but, see my post above, I doubt there is much there that can incriminate or absolve.
I'd rather not. If you're unhappy about Mayor Andy Burnham not coming out & saying City are innocent having not seen any evidence & ahead of a hearing, where do we draw the line?
The Council leader? The Chief Constable? The GMLC? Is it also incumbent on them to do what Burnham's failed to do?
I'll hazard a guess that your personal views of Burnham maybe colouring your view on him not publicly claiming City are innocent.
I'm absolutely no expert but it surprises me how many on here are equating the PL claiming that the club circumvented PSR & preceding financial regulations by fraudulent means with criminal fraud offences.The IC may not. But they are being asked to. Civil fraud not criminal fraud.
What’s the distinction between the two?The IC may not. But they are being asked to. Civil fraud not criminal fraud.
What’s the distinction between the two?
I'm absolutely no expert but it surprises me how many on here are equating the PL claiming that the club circumvented PSR & preceding financial regulations by fraudulent means with criminal fraud offences.
It is entirely possible for us to be found guilty of the PL allegations without any criminal offence taking place surely?
By that I assume that I can be correct depending on what the club has done to circumvent PL rules but it could also be criminal if more serious actions are uncovered?Yes and no :)
By that I assume that I can be correct depending on what the club has done to circumvent PL rules but it could also be criminal if more serious actions are uncovered?
I see you've inserted "possibly".I actually think he’s done some really positive stuff, especially around the nightlife economy. I listened to him on a podcast years ago & liked him & thought he stood up well in Covid however ultimately punished for doing it.
So I want to like him.
Has the Chief Constable had an opinion on football governance?
I hope you can see the pattern. I was the same with Sam Lee, harder on him than any other journalist because I expect more. As a representative with close links you’d expect any discussion prior to CAS he could have been the lone voice to write an article that possibly City could be found innocent, he didn’t.
Not fucking 1!
I see you've inserted "possibly".
Aren't you putting the cart before the horse? Without being party to the detailed breach accusations & supporting evidence, & City's defence & supporting evidence, how can we resonably expect politician Burham make any claims regarding City's guilt or innocence?
Don't you think it prudent to be in receipt of all the facts before making a judgement call?
Haven't City fans been lamenting over the media & opposition fans deciding we're guilty when similarly having zero supporting or contrary evidence to back up their claims?
Mate, we can't have it both ways.
I'm not upset, I'm just trying to be even handed. We can't curse all & sundry for deciding we're guilty until proven otherwise, then call out Burnham for not claiming we're innocent until proven otherwise, & him wanting City to be treated fairly. I just don't see what he's done wrong...I inserted ‘possibly’ when talking about why I was critical of Sam Lee.
I’ve obviously upset you because I criticised Andy Burnham, don’t take it to heart but there are ways of showing support prior to receiving all the facts. It’s called innocent until proven guilty.
If we're speaking about the same report it was from the European commission. It accepted that UEFA was a suitable body to "regulate" (I can't remember the actual word used) European football but it stressed that regulations must be within the framework of European competition law. Their statement had nothing to do with FFP except in the most general terms, but was the result of widespread discontent in Germany with loans made to Spain by the EU to help with their financial crisis and budget deficit, and thus paid in part by German taxpayers, while multi-millionaire players such as Messi and Renaldo were given very generous tax breaks by the Spanish government. These tax breaks are no longer permitted, but not because of pressure from UEFA or any regulation by them.There was a European parliament report a few years ago that supported FFP, despite the challenge to EU law on unfair restraint on trade. What didn't get as much publicity was that the report also said that the regulatory body should not be run by directors of the clubs who might set and enforce rules to their clubs' advantage.
Cheers!Civil fraud is between private parties and results in compensation or other civil remedies. Criminal fraud relates to illegal activity prosecuted by the Crown with criminal sanctions such as imprisonment.
So the IC can determine an activity to be fraudulent as long as it relates to, in this case, for example, a breach of contract, but it can't determine criminal fraud. Although the same activity may well also be criminal if prosecuted in a criminal court.
I think :)
Not guilty until the facts prevail. Irrefutable evidence is the clubs starting point. I don’t get this long winded explanation. You think we have given the league evidence of our guilt because a court ruled in their favour regarding how much evidence we should give them?Of course it’s theoretically possible that this is simply a rehash of the UEFA case with exactly the same evidence, however the fact that the PL went to court, won and City were forced to hand over more than they wanted to suggests that it wont be.
As I’ve said before, my only basis point for speculating that the PL must have something they believe to be a golden bullet is that Adam Lewis has driven the process on their side and the guy quite literally wrote the playbook for how to litigate sporting cases, City obviously have a fantastically knowledgable and competent team also but Lewis is the go-to guy for this sort of case.
It’s important to acknowledge also that he won’t have taken the case for financial reasons, he picks and chooses his cases and will easily net £1m+ per year without taking this on, the hope is that as others have speculated it’s an ego thing for him in ‘succeeding’ where UEFA failed, which i can also accept is very possible.
Ultimately I’m not suggesting that I believe the PL will ‘win’, as with Stefan I think they’ve made a rod for their own back by clearly overcharging the club and with the overt allegation of fraud they’ll need to present something totally explosive to land those charges and I cant believe they have that, even if such a thing exists - my position that I’ve stated previously is that I suspect it will be a ‘guilty’ on Mancini, Fordham & Non-Cooperation, a decent (10+) points deduction and a fine, reduced on appeal to a large fine and maybe 1-3 points which I’m sure the clubs executives would be clearing out Manchester’s Cubana and Dom P reserves for if offered right now.
The underlying thing that I don’t think most have sufficiently acknowledged yet though is that it’s demonstrably *not* going to be a like-for-like tribunal as CAS, simply because it’s public record that the PL have gotten more from City via Commercial Court, now of course it’s phenomenally unlikely City have willingly provided them a golden bullet so I’m not exactly panicking about that, but we should all be clear that they do have a bit more than just the Der Speigel emails.
Not guilty until the facts prevail. Irrefutable evidence is the clubs starting point. I don’t get this long winded explanation. You think we have given the league evidence of our guilt because a court ruled in their favour regarding how much evidence we should give them?
From this decision you have decided the club is guilty and have now put it upon yourself to decide the punishment in the form of points deduction etc etc.
We probably only give them page 115 which refers to their complete lack of professionalism and disingenuous approach to all thing financially fair.
No written proof of our guilt exists otherwise we would be investigated by the proper law enforcement not Gill and Parry et all or should I say Kevin & Perry, that wouldll they ;)
Definitely Kevin & Perry!Not guilty until the facts prevail. Irrefutable evidence is the clubs starting point. I don’t get this long winded explanation. You think we have given the league evidence of our guilt because a court ruled in their favour regarding how much evidence we should give them?
From this decision you have decided the club is guilty and have now put it upon yourself to decide the punishment in the form of points deduction etc etc.
We probably only give them page 115 which refers to their complete lack of professionalism and disingenuous approach to all thing financially fair.
No written proof of our guilt exists otherwise we would be investigated by the proper law enforcement not Gill and Parry et all or should I say Kevin & Perry, that would be more apt.
Well yes as the Mancini and Fordham bits are well known and established ‘facts’ now, as discussed at CAS with Mancini although it can be proven that he did have a ‘second contract’ with Abu Dhabi, the amount of money is completely immaterial and wouldn’t have made the club pass or fail FFP.So in a nutshell, in your opinion, we've done some of what the PL have alleged and they have substantive proof to support it.
We know this because it’s public record that City lost in Commercial Court and were forced to turn over additional requested documents.They have more than the der Spiegel emails?
And you know that because....?
They have nothing. Zilch. Zip. Nada.
Well on Mancini and Fordham the whole point is not what is in the clubs record, but what’s *not* in the clubs records.Now, you see, what I don't understand about this argument is exactly what you are expecting there to be in the books and records of the club that would support the allegations that have been made.
Take Mancini, even assuming it isn't time limited, exactly what are you expecting there to be at the club that would show anything other than a difference of opinion about how much of Mancini's salary should be disclosed to the PL? I am pretty sure they must have all the accounting information relating to the club's contract, there may be some payments made to/from ADUG or AJ relating to the AJ contract, but I am assuming none of those AJ-related payments actually entered the club's profit and loss account otherwise what is the PL wanting exactly? The only things the PL could want, and imho aren't entitled to demand, is confirmation from Mancini's management company of the actual contracts that were operative with AJ, and details of the time spent by Mancini fulfilling that contract. That, if you ask me, is the PL's problem with Mancini, they haven't had access to information that would remove the allegation, because the club told them to fuck off and they don't have the jurisdiction to go independently to third parties even, and I will underline this for emphasis, they have been given everything relevant in the club's books and records as required by the PL rules and the court ruling.
Multiply this by the number of allegations for which the PL has the same problem, and I can't see what the PL could have gleaned from the books and records of the club that would prove, for example, that ADUG funded the Etihad sponsorship, that the Etisalat story at CAS was or wasn't true, that Fordham was created to reduce expenses, that the AD sponsorships weren't fair value or related party transactions. That is why you have 115 charges including non-cooperation, even though the club says they have complied, and acting in bad faith.
Eh? In the exact same sentence as saying the club was forced to turn over addition documents, I said there’s no way they would’ve self incriminated in doing so.Not guilty until the facts prevail. Irrefutable evidence is the clubs starting point. I don’t get this long winded explanation. You think we have given the league evidence of our guilt because a court ruled in their favour regarding how much evidence we should give them?
Yes, this is what I was trying, and probably failing to eloquently say, is that whilst yes it’s the same substantive case being retried, it’s also very clear that the PL have more documents at hand than UEFA had and that I can’t see how the PL can ever land the most serious allegations.I wouldn't over complicate this. The case is based largely on the same facts but it is undeniable that the process will be more thorough, disclosure of documents far broader, the IC far more conventionally English (ie English law) and therefore has far more risk for City (and in different ways, the PL). But it also remains an inherently unlikely case theory to prove. That is the PLs task and City defence task.