PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Lord Blue]

This is nonsense - to the extent there is a statute of limitations point to run, the IC will decide and will decide in accordance with English law - the rules are expressly stated to be construed in accordance with English law.

There are reasons for the PL to argue that City's actions means the SoL will not apply (concealment/fraud etc) but this is an argument that will have to be made. It may well be moot but it is undeniable there is an English law SoL in the Premier League rules. It was wrongly expressed by the media briefing at the start and it is wrong now.

I love posts like these. bite sized, no waffle. just clear and concise info to take away.

 

[Gordyola]

This is potentially a stupid question and I apologise if so. Some of the charges that have been thrown our way is that we failed UEFAs ffp (I think). Now this got me wondering if that is a charge for us shouldn’t UTD also be charged with failing UEFA FFP?

I don’t think I have seen this answered anywhere but apologise if it has.

5 batches of charges numerous over years
Batch 1&2 are accusations of substantial accounting issues
If they cant proved 1&2 then 3&4 which include the UEAF FFP breach then those fail too
5 is related to non-cooperation

 

[Gone for a Burton]

I believe this is where the recently added PL ’reasonable suspicion / doubt’ filter could be used - rather like the powers now deciding what is fair market value in sponsorships etc.
Its an absolute minefield. The main charges which could lead to the strongest sanctions cannot - ( again in my humble view) - be founded on feelings or suspicion. There is simply too much at stake to impose sanction without the strongest evidence. Trusting our Chairman, if we have irrefutable proof good luck to the other side!
Keep the faith and let’s raise the roof for the players and Pep on Sunday. They are going to need us.

SATURDAY !!

 

[radcliffe1309]

SATURDAY !!

Must be on about Coventry...

 

[Invisible Man's Bandage]

I won't bother linking the article but this is from The Guardian. It's about fans being priced out of top level football (which is a decent topic) but this is a quote from a home and away Everton fan.

You know, when we played Man City, our whole first XI cost less than Jack Grealish, who was on the bench and came on for 10 minutes,” he says. “And yet we’re the ones done for a points deduction, for an overspend, while they can do what they’re doing, get all their oil money, spin it through their different companies, through their PO boxes or whatever they’re doing and get away with it.

Obviously The Guardian is completely shite but even by their pitiful standards this is fucking disgraceful.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Surely City would fight any judgement that is on the balance of probability.

It's a civil case. Balance of probabilities is the burden of proof.

 

[Centurions]

I won't bother linking the article but this is from The Guardian. It's about fans being priced out of top level football (which is a decent topic) but this is a quote from a home and away Everton fan.

You know, when we played Man City, our whole first XI cost less than Jack Grealish, who was on the bench and came on for 10 minutes,” he says. “And yet we’re the ones done for a points deduction, for an overspend, while they can do what they’re doing, get all their oil money, spin it through their different companies, through their PO boxes or whatever they’re doing and get away with it.

Obviously The Guardian is completely shite but even by their pitiful standards this is fucking disgraceful.

Must be bloody big PO boxes we use :)

 

[Dribble]

And I’ve given my opinion what I believe he hasn’t done well.

We're all entitled to an opinion, & ours respectfully differ. I'm sure we're both hoping for the best outcome for City, so on that score we can both concur.

 

[Bluewonder]

Following Lassel's point that Fordham was disclosed as a related party in the club's accounts, I spent some time digging to corroborate.

Unfortunately, there is no mention of Fordham; however, the FY13 accounts contain the following disclosure, which I'll paraphrase:

"In FY23 the club entered into transactions with group subsidiary, City Football Marketing Limited, for the sale of intangible assets of £11.6m, and with group subsidiary, City Football Group Limited, for the sale of intangible assets of £10.6m."

This is quite clearly disclosed in the Related Party Transactions note (note 24) and presumably relates to the image rights sale.

As I understand from the lawyers on here, a central tenet of the case is that City has acted fraudulently and that entitles the PL to broaden the case beyond the six year statute of limitations in the laws of England and Wales.

My contention, therefore, is that the club has not acted fraudulently and has disclosed the sale (or, rather, sales, as appears) in the relevant note of its audited accounts.

Unless I'm missing something, which is very possible as my expertise lies in finance rather than law, I'm struggling to see how the PL can even allege fraud, never mind prove it.

Any comments are welcome.

 

[Dribble]

Unfortunately Chappie you are so right.
I wait with baited breath mate. ;)

We have a pedantic set of planks or two on BM. He popped up on a response of mine a few days ago, shot his load, flopped out, & then didn't respond to my last response to him, because to do so, he'd have had to argue against the very points he'd been bellyaching about.

I suppose he epitomises all that's wrong with the Internet. :-)