PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Invisible Man's Bandage said:
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.
Click to expand...
Must be bloody big PO boxes we use :)
 
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.
 
oakiecokie said:
Unfortunately Chappie you are so right.
I wait with baited breath mate. ;)
Click to expand...
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. :-)
 
halfcenturyup said:
It's a civil case. Balance of probabilities is the burden of proof.
Click to expand...
I'm aware of that,my question was,would City take a guilty verdict on the balance of probability on such a serious charge .
The accusations are tantamount to a large scale fraud, over many year's, you can't make such allegations and come up with a guilty verdict on the balance of probability.
This surely would take it out of the realms of civil law and into criminal law, irrespective of any premier league rules. .
Do you honestly believe that City would not challenge any ruling on something that,on the "balance of probability" ,could destroy the whole fabric of the club and the CFG .
 
Bluewonder said:
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.
Click to expand...
Agreed 100%... Fordham was mentioned & settled with UEFA in 2014, & was wound down in 2015, formally ending with all image rights returning to City in 2018.

I've absolutely no idea either why it's being brought up by some on here again. Not knowing the details of the charges, I find it difficult (but not impossible) for the PL to exhumed this old chestnut again, whilst hoping to prove something which settled a decade ago with UEFA.

The mind boggles...
 
Chappie said:
I'm aware of that,my question was,would City take a guilty verdict on the balance of probability on such a serious charge .
The accusations are tantamount to a large scale fraud, over many year's, you can't make such allegations and come up with a guilty verdict on the balance of probability.
This surely would take it out of the realms of civil law and into criminal law, irrespective of any premier league rules. .
Do you honestly believe that City would not challenge any ruling on something that,on the "balance of probability" ,could destroy the whole fabric of the club and the CFG .
Click to expand...
My question is, is the PL's Independent Commission a Civil Court?

The IC sound more like the Executive Committee of the Wheeltappers & Shunters Social Club, with about as much power in actual UK Law.

the_wheeltappers_and_shunters_social_club.jpg
 
Bluewonder said:
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.
Click to expand...

The related party transactions relate to the sale of IP to group companies (scouting systems and the like). Fordham wasn't a related party transaction.
 
Chappie said:
I'm aware of that,my question was,would City take a guilty verdict on the balance of probability on such a serious charge .
The accusations are tantamount to a large scale fraud, over many year's, you can't make such allegations and come up with a guilty verdict on the balance of probability.
This surely would take it out of the realms of civil law and into criminal law, irrespective of any premier league rules. .
Do you honestly believe that City would not challenge any ruling on something that,on the "balance of probability" ,could destroy the whole fabric of the club and the CFG .
Click to expand...

The PL allegations aren't for fraud in a criminal context, the allegations are for breaches of contract that effectively represent fraudulent behaviour. Civil law claims.

That said, the seriousness of the claims raise the level of cogency required in the evidence presented. But balance of probabilities is the standard of proof in this civil claim and there is nothing the club can do about it but suck it up and defend themselves.

If you are confused about the difference between civil and criminal cases and the standards of proof, think O J Simpson.
 
halfcenturyup said:
The PL allegations aren't for fraud in a criminal context, the allegations are for breaches of contract that effectively represent fraudulent behaviour. Civil law claims.

That said, the seriousness of the claims raise the level of cogency required in the evidence presented. But balance of probabilities is the standard of proof in this civil claim and there is nothing the club can do about it but suck it up and defend themselves.

If you are confused about the difference between civil and criminal cases and the standards of proof, think O J Simpson.
Click to expand...
This is where I always get extra twitchy. Who decides what the level of cogency is, cos I’ve never seen anything to dissuade me from the notion that the Tribunal will be able to make that ‘level’ be whatever they want it to be (within reason)?
 
Bluewonder said:
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.
Click to expand...
I might be wrong but this is a civil case and therefore SOL does apply even if fraud is alleged ?
 
Len Rum said:
I might be wrong but this is a civil case and therefore SOL does apply even if fraud is alleged ?
Click to expand...

The limitation is six years from the event, unless the event was knowingly concealed in which case it's six years from when the event becomes known, or could reasonably have been expected to be known.

I think.
 
Exeter Blue I am here said:
This is where I always get extra twitchy. Who decides what the level of cogency is, cos I’ve never seen anything to dissuade me from the notion that the Tribunal will be able to make that ‘level’ be whatever they want it to be (within reason)?
Click to expand...

I think questions like that are well-established in law. It's up to our counsel to make sure the law is applied properly.
 
Lots of good explanaptions in here.. Soooo much better than the chuffing media who just print whatever utd or lfc fans want to hear.
I still dont know if we are safe or if we get the book thrown at us. But I do know this, Pep (And by extension our team) trust the owners, they trust that we are right. Since the charges landed our team have acted as if we are innocent. They play (Since then specifically) with belief determination, passion I hadnt seen before. They certainly havent played like a team who know everything they have achieved will be wiped from the records.
 
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