PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

mcfcphil said:
You’re making a big assumption here - the backdrop to this case very much depends on the individual.

I doubt members of the tribunal will be following this issue in the court of public opinion (Twitter and football forums). I’d hazard a guess they don’t have talksport on every day in chambers.

True, they will see some coverage in mainstream press but that is no different to other cases/inquiries they will have been involved in previously.

You could extend this to City’s legal team. I’m sure Pannick wants to win this case, but he would want to win the case equally as much if he was representing the PL.

They are professional people doing their job. That’s all there is to it.
Click to expand...

Indeed. But when the PL is forced to comment on mainstream media reports, of speculation based on sove very loose twitter claims, it will almost certainly filter through to both legal teams, and possibly the IC too. Which has happened a couple times already.
 
Kinkys Left Foot said:
I'm intrigued by what the PL have to present to the IC in order to equitably justify alleged "Concealment".

I'm assuming it's physical evidence that must satisfy the civil burden of proof and not "hearsay". Are the emails themselves sufficient?
Click to expand...
Surely the emails were just grounds for investigation, I'm not a legal expert but I'd be quite shocked if they were deemed to be sufficient on their own to satisfy "balance of probabilities" without backup from a verifiable transaction trail.
 
Coatigan said:
Indeed. But when the PL is forced to comment on mainstream media reports, of speculation based on sove very loose twitter claims, it will almost certainly filter through to both legal teams, and possibly the IC too. Which has happened a couple times already.
Click to expand...
If the PL are after a dignified way out, then the inability to conduct a 'fair trial' due to media speculation might allow them to save face and pretend to be competent.
 
LeonardoDaVnci said:
Statute of Limitations

So there are two possible exceptions to the six year rule.

1 Criminality
We have to be safe to assume its absolutely not applicable, no GMP, HMRC, DPP, SFO interest.

2 Concealment
So is the level detail that City are being judged on far deeper than required by the PL handbooks AND applied to EVERY other club. For example the PL can't say your guilty of not revealing some particular financial details if NO other club had done likewise. Don't forget every other Club's accounts are in the public domain.

Personally I no longer give a flying fuck about anything becoming tine barred, gone past caring and would welcome it.
Click to expand...
There is a third exception - Mistake.
 
LeonardoDaVnci said:
Clearly, I am not an auditor, but I am intrigued by the level of scrutiny they applied to City's accounts. So for example, on dd/mm/yyyy City's bank account received a payment in for £40M. Presumably the auditors query this either via email or in person, whatever. And the City accounts person replies "Oh that was a sponsorship payment from Ethihad Airways". Is that the end of the conversation ? the BDO person just says "thanks for that, moving on, next item..."
FFS there must be more scrutiny than that ?. We have never seen ANY leaked emails between City and BDO. Why might that be ?.
Click to expand...
In my experience they then asked for documentation, ie an audit trail. When I was responsible for a main budget in a large company, every year they asked me to prove a selection of items with full documentation. In addition if any items were queried, I would be questioned as well. They could not be fobbed off but, equally, they were not finickety to the last degree.
 
give it to gordon said:
I agree City are called guilty or implied guilty on a daily basis. I do wonder how City will get a fair hearing.
I know people says it's KC and they won't let this effect them but still part of me thinks it will.
Plus I don't see how it's legal for the press/media to call us guilty
Click to expand...
It is a civil dispute so no rules like criminal proceedings.
 
KS55 said:
In my experience they then asked for documentation, ie an audit trail. When I was responsible for a main budget in a large company, every year they asked me to prove a selection of items with full documentation. In addition if any items were queried, I would be questioned as well. They could not be fobbed off but, equally, they were not finickety to the last degree.
Click to expand...

Maybe not to start with, but if multiple regulatory bodies began investigating they would surely make enquiries until satisfied everything was legit? If they weren't satisfied and believed there was even the remotest possibility they had been misled, they would surely have resigned.
 
Coatigan said:
I get that. I have welcomed it, certaunly found it both interesting and informative.

Don't think you have understood what I was trying to say, but I'll leave it, it is jot that important.

I think too many people say things way too freely with this. But I guess with nothing there to discourage it, it is inevitable.
Click to expand...
It makes money for the media.

They can have opinions of the news presented as news, deliberate lies presented as news etc..

If both sides prefer to ignore it why should we worry.? All we do is add to the revenue created.

In the past so called D Notices were put on some Gov news and for legal cases once arrest happens it seems media speculation is banned until a court verdict arrives.
 
halfcenturyup said:
View attachment 120962
They are in separate paragraphs, unless I am missing something
Click to expand...
The relevant clause is quite clear. A member club to include full details of manager remuneration in its relevant contracts with the manager. Surely that means any other contracts are nothing to do with us and as long as the club has paid what's in that contract and nothing more, then there is no issue, even if the club was aware that he had another contract with someone else. Having 2 jobs is not a crime and it does not breach Premier League rules. Same applies to player contracts. The key is the word it's. That implies other contracts are irrelevant does it not?
 
Blu3m00n91 said:
1000050908.jpg

It’s okay for Ineos to have multiple sponsors for the same club but it’s corrupt when Etihad sponsor Girona
Click to expand...

If you question sponsors maybe Leicester's title win needs to be scrutinised too, literally everything at that club was sponsored to the hilt by King Power.

Leicester were well within their rights though to prop the club up in my opinion and give their company great exposure simultaneously, unlike us though it's very unlikely they'd have raised decent money or anywhere near as much money without King Power's help, there should be no issue with this in the slightest it's all okay what they did and us too.
It's ridiculous to suggest clubs shouldn't be allowed to invest in themselves long term it destroys competition, FFP needs ditching asap as without it in place I'm pretty sure Newcastle would've pushed on and qualified for next season's UCL too.

With our sponsorship our owners wanted to give Etihad Airways the maximum exposure possible, with them nobody particularly knew of them before they sponsored us but they've had their name splashed alongside our success. Now they're a massive worldwide name in aviation rather than a massive regional airline, Emirates Airlines also had the exact same motives when sponsoring Arsenal for similar exposure, it's funny how it's not Arab money when it concerns the redshirt brigade cos without Emirates money Arsenal could've struggled.

With Leicester and King Power in their case (not sure where allegations went) as a company they've also been accused of major corruption, so by the flawed logic the freaks who carry on about us have used in the last decade they should ask whether the magic of Leicester's title win has been tainted, not that it has or should be in question it's far from tainted for me but we all know what I'm getting at.

There's many examples of shareholders propping clubs up they've invested in like Bayern and Juve, just like Ineos with Nice or the rags I'm sure in the near future I'm sure they'll help out and then there's King Power propping up Leicester, there's an extreme case of double standards everywhere you look when it comes to our owners and everyone else's.

Everything becomes a lot more scrutinised with us, they hate we've muscled in on the redshirt brigade.
 
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