Kinkys Left Foot
Well-Known Member
So following Magic Twats latest revelations on demand:
1. Why City "Got away with it" at CAS
I'm assuming he's referring to the time barred elements. Now as we all know UEFA have a five year disbarring time period. The UEFA rules didn't make clear from what date this ran from. CAS cleared that up and we now know it ran from the date the matters were charged. Not what UEFA stipulated or what MCFC alleged.
The matters concerned within the time barring period I believe were the Etisalat payment schedules via a 3rd party and Mancinis additional contract with AD based ANFC. I'm unsure if the UEFA allegation re Etisalat was that the money was equity funding sponsorship or a sham sponsorship. The Mancini contract I think was that it was a sham contract as a vehicle for additional remuneration.
What was startling was that no evidence was offered by UEFA to try to establish either of those allegations. MCFC presented a wealth of rebuttal evidence in support of their claims both documentary (I'm presuming contract docs for Mancinis contract and invoices and copies of Etisalat account receivables where the movement of monies payable were clear and traceable) and testimonial from appropriate parties.
In any event those matters were time barred and no decision or findings were required by the panel.
I'm sure the same evidence will be available as rebuttal to City in the PL proceedings should those allegations have been made. Its just unclear what evidence the PL may have if the above allegations have been made.
In consideration of the two matters Im pretty sure Citys position will be that these matters occur before the 23.02.2017 and are outside the 6 year limitation period for such matters as laid down by UK law.
The matters could be allowed by the panel should they be subject to "fraud" exemptions of the Limitation Act. However the PL would have to demonstrate that such fraud had taken place or maybe that it would be, "reasonable", to suggest such fraud had taken place. This element of the assumption of fraud seems somewhat opaque to me and I am unsure to what standard the PLs obligations are tested for such matters to be allowed. (Perhaps Stefan can help out here). I would have thought they must supply evidence with the Civil burden of proof of "on the balance of probability" to prove the fraud exists. I'm not sure where this evidence is likely to come from as UEFA certainly had none and I doubt City would provide any (under legal advice) and taking the position that the matters are outside the Limitation Act.
Without the evidence these matters remain time barred due to limitation. I'm interested to know how Magic Twat thinks the PL get around this hurdle so the "how it will be different at the IC" plays out.
1. Why City "Got away with it" at CAS
I'm assuming he's referring to the time barred elements. Now as we all know UEFA have a five year disbarring time period. The UEFA rules didn't make clear from what date this ran from. CAS cleared that up and we now know it ran from the date the matters were charged. Not what UEFA stipulated or what MCFC alleged.
The matters concerned within the time barring period I believe were the Etisalat payment schedules via a 3rd party and Mancinis additional contract with AD based ANFC. I'm unsure if the UEFA allegation re Etisalat was that the money was equity funding sponsorship or a sham sponsorship. The Mancini contract I think was that it was a sham contract as a vehicle for additional remuneration.
What was startling was that no evidence was offered by UEFA to try to establish either of those allegations. MCFC presented a wealth of rebuttal evidence in support of their claims both documentary (I'm presuming contract docs for Mancinis contract and invoices and copies of Etisalat account receivables where the movement of monies payable were clear and traceable) and testimonial from appropriate parties.
In any event those matters were time barred and no decision or findings were required by the panel.
I'm sure the same evidence will be available as rebuttal to City in the PL proceedings should those allegations have been made. Its just unclear what evidence the PL may have if the above allegations have been made.
In consideration of the two matters Im pretty sure Citys position will be that these matters occur before the 23.02.2017 and are outside the 6 year limitation period for such matters as laid down by UK law.
The matters could be allowed by the panel should they be subject to "fraud" exemptions of the Limitation Act. However the PL would have to demonstrate that such fraud had taken place or maybe that it would be, "reasonable", to suggest such fraud had taken place. This element of the assumption of fraud seems somewhat opaque to me and I am unsure to what standard the PLs obligations are tested for such matters to be allowed. (Perhaps Stefan can help out here). I would have thought they must supply evidence with the Civil burden of proof of "on the balance of probability" to prove the fraud exists. I'm not sure where this evidence is likely to come from as UEFA certainly had none and I doubt City would provide any (under legal advice) and taking the position that the matters are outside the Limitation Act.
Without the evidence these matters remain time barred due to limitation. I'm interested to know how Magic Twat thinks the PL get around this hurdle so the "how it will be different at the IC" plays out.
