Exactly,what we are seeing is a temporary fix being put in place to replace the last temporary fix,and when the trophy winning landscape changes accordingly another fix will be put in place.
PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules
- Thread starter ayrshire_blue
- Start date
I've explained many times. Not all fraud is criminal. Not all allegations of fraud involve the SFO or HMRC - in this case City will have paid more tax (or reduced its deferred tax losses) so HMRC is probably a red herring anyway.
But there is not even a debate to be had about the nature of the allegations - in City's words at CAS: "The allegations made by the CFCB in these proceedings are serious and based on fraud and conspiracy involving MCFC, ADUG and the sponsors Etisalat and Etihad."
For CAS' part they said: "UEFA’s theory would also mean that not only MCFC lied to The FA and UEFA, but also that accountancy firms such as BDO, Deloitte, Ernst & Young and AlixPartners that all examined accounts of one or more entities involved were all misled."
So again, if proven, very serious. Not hyperbolic and not my words.
Dribble
Well-Known Member
This is EXACTLY where all this hyperbole is driving City fans insane, instead of pointing out a few crucial fundamentals.
To verify their accusations against City, the PL will need access to the accounts of companies based in the UAE. Fat chance of getting those!
Now someone mentioned part of City's non-cooperation breaches were, we were asked to get them for UEFA & we told them go get it themselves, as we've as much right as UEFA have to demand a foreign entity's detailed accounts & banks statements.
These obvious, but fundamental point keep being overlooked. Without access to these foreign accounts & bank statements, all UEFA & the PL have is supposition without any actual hard evidence.
Regarding the sponsors, when has anyone heard of HMRC complaining they've been paid too much tax? They've been made aware of the Der Spiegel allegations, but as yet we've not had our collar felt. Why haven't more people questioned why?
Not clicking on it - but what is this “big update”
Lord Blue
Well-Known Member
Let's face it, the "ownership model" only really works for one club - and I think the fact that Audi, Adidas and Allianz are part owners and put X amount of money in - as well as sponsoring themselves - helps!!!
manimanc
Well-Known Member
Thank you for putting me straight.
Found this, there’s another article on the net that confirms his last address was Palmerston Road which is where my Aunty lived so it had to be him, born 1950, died 2016, 66 which I think is about right, he would have been 27 when he was my tutor in 1977.
Dribble
Well-Known Member
Sorry, but in my opinion you're perpetuating the hyperbole being spread by the Red Top Mafia & Spuds, & their client media by not highlighting the several inarguable fundamentals that will kill these breaches dead.
Finally we're getting to the crux of these matters. UEFA all but accused us of industrial scale fraud, so why've they never used the word in relation to City?
It was circa 2014 that a Manchester City Executive mentioned the word "fraud" in that interview. Evidently City were trying to draw UEFA's fire imo, but UEFA didn't bite.
Now explain to me why neither UEFA nor the Premier League have ever responded to that "fraud" comment or used the word "fraud" in relation to City since 2014 to my knowledge?
Also, you claimed the PL said City were facing "115 charges". Can you provide a link to where they said this, as I was unable to find it before or since our exchange.
Found this as well, definitely him!
Attachments
goldcoastblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 1 Sep 2014
- Messages
- 195
Ffs can you 2 take it to dm please
blueparsman
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 11 May 2012
- Messages
- 1,249
Wow dick head simon jordan finally admitting ffp was a drawbidge to stop anyone challenging the elite. Even going to stage saying why bring in caps to epl wen it is in its prime. Even saying restrictions shud be off yo allow other teams to invest in there teams. Only thing he sees shud happen is more distribution down the lower leagues. Well fuck me side ways
Yeah, that's him. Strange where Donoghue vs Stevenson can lead you to on Bluemoon isn't it.
Invisible Man's Bandage
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 4 Sep 2020
- Messages
- 3,204
- Team supported
- Manchester City
Lack of work or already earnt enough for today?
GaudinoMotors
Well-Known Member
What will today bring then? Another episode of FriendsReunited? The A to Z Guide to Legal Jargon? Will GDM let anything go? Will Tubster extricate his tongue from Steffan (swoon)? Can Tin Foil swear any more? Is anything not the Tories fault? Will I say anything positive? These questions—and many others—will be answered in the next episode of
PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules / The Mousetrap.
Last edited:
:-) apologies to everyone else on here, we’ve been like those two old women that Les Dawson and Roy Barraclough used to portray in TV, Cissie and Ada! Cheers.
flb
Well-Known Member
I agree , it’s why I said the rules have to be contracted for 5 years without change , it will never happen of course , as soon as United , dippers , Arsenal , and that jumped up fucking outfit spurs end up in the shite there will be a call to change the rules again.
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 14,935
Let me summarise for anyone still trying to get their head around whether the club has been accused of fraud and, if so, why the authorities aren't banging the club's back doors in. Literally and figuratively.
Firstly, this is a breach of contract case. The allegations are that the club breached its contract with the PL. Which is why the referral to the panel doesn't mention the word "fraud", only the alleged breaches of the rules that form part of the contract. It's not a criminal case, no-one is going to jail following the panel's decision.
But, the combination of allegations (presenting errors in the accounts, disguising equity injections, acting in bad faith, failing FFP) do effectively represent fraudulent activity if proven, and the civil sanctions can be punitive. City's lawyers made this point at CAS, CAS agreed and you can be sure the club's lawyers will be doing the same in front of the panel. Why? Because it raises the cogency of the evidence required to prove the allegations. It is generally accepted on here that there is little chance the PL have the evidence to prove their most serious allegations. The higher cogency makes it almost impossible, imho.
So, if the allegations effectively represent fraudulent activity, why aren't the authorities at the Etihad now? Well, there is no definitive answer because no two situations are the same, but let me ask you this. If you were head of the SFO, you had seen UEFA's charges and how they were dismissed, you had followed the PL's allegations, but have no knowledge of the PL's evidence, other than the fact it should most probably be based on the same as UEFA's evidence, what would you do? Go into the PL and the Etihad all guns blazing with your limited resources to get to the bottom of it? Or wait until the panel comes to a conclusion and then decide what to do? I think that is an easy decision, tbh, especially given the way CAS dealt with UEFA's charges.
All imho, of course, and open to being bashed by the lawyers on here.
Firstly, this is a breach of contract case. The allegations are that the club breached its contract with the PL. Which is why the referral to the panel doesn't mention the word "fraud", only the alleged breaches of the rules that form part of the contract. It's not a criminal case, no-one is going to jail following the panel's decision.
But, the combination of allegations (presenting errors in the accounts, disguising equity injections, acting in bad faith, failing FFP) do effectively represent fraudulent activity if proven, and the civil sanctions can be punitive. City's lawyers made this point at CAS, CAS agreed and you can be sure the club's lawyers will be doing the same in front of the panel. Why? Because it raises the cogency of the evidence required to prove the allegations. It is generally accepted on here that there is little chance the PL have the evidence to prove their most serious allegations. The higher cogency makes it almost impossible, imho.
So, if the allegations effectively represent fraudulent activity, why aren't the authorities at the Etihad now? Well, there is no definitive answer because no two situations are the same, but let me ask you this. If you were head of the SFO, you had seen UEFA's charges and how they were dismissed, you had followed the PL's allegations, but have no knowledge of the PL's evidence, other than the fact it should most probably be based on the same as UEFA's evidence, what would you do? Go into the PL and the Etihad all guns blazing with your limited resources to get to the bottom of it? Or wait until the panel comes to a conclusion and then decide what to do? I think that is an easy decision, tbh, especially given the way CAS dealt with UEFA's charges.
All imho, of course, and open to being bashed by the lawyers on here.
Gorton_Tubster
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 2 Apr 2012
- Messages
- 18,988
- Location
- Riding the blue tidal wave.
- Team supported
- Manchester City
Why isnt Stefan on Talksport ? Theyve got some other guy on who's talking abhout the advantage given to the top 6 (With City as the example obvs) from the recent rule changes . Fucks me off how they move the goalposts.