PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Iassel said:
Obviously we have disagreed on the topic - albeit I think respectfully and in good faith - so once again I would just pick up on these few points, once again being my opinion only.

On Mancini, I would actually say it would be pretty easy for the PL to show concealment, not least because we all know full well that the reason Mancini signed the deal with the UAE was to enable both parties to lock in without risking his €14m payout from Inter.

I don’t think any of us disagree that for the most important topics, the evidenciary requirement is going to be huge and likely impossible to meet, but for €1,25m I don’t think the panel will have issue ruling ‘only’ on balance of probabilities, which again only in my opinion wouldn’t be hard for the PL to meet.

On Fordham, the agreement with City wasn’t wound down until sometime between 17 & 19, so it’s highly likely it won’t found to be time barred, but as I’ve said before, it wouldn’t have needed Sherlock Holmes to uncover the setup as Cliff was even a director….

That said, the Fordham arrangement ultimately added £59.9m in revenue to the club, so clearly it would in theory pass the materiality test for filing false accounts and acting in bad faith, however as above would in my opinion fall on the fact that City weren’t ever hiding the setup…

As said before, ultimately my opinion is that Mancini and Fordham are slam dunks for the PL, but they can only ever carry a minimal sporting sanction as Mancini is immaterial and Fordham was never concealed.

The interesting question is why the PL didn’t just stick with these 2x + non compliance which likely could’ve been wrapped up by now…perhaps the juice wasn’t worth the squeeze for ‘only’ those charges.
Click to expand...
If it's that easy to prove concealment then either prove it or fuck off
 
Judge Roughneck said:
A fundamental error on their part, with the sole intention of making a bigger splash. They've created a legal behemoth that they now have to prove.
Click to expand...
If I were our defence team, I would certainly encourage the tribunal to consider this as a pointer to bad faith by the PL. “He who comes to equity must come with clean hands.”
 
KS55 said:
If I were our defence team, I would certainly encourage the tribunal to consider this as a pointer to bad faith by the PL. “He who comes to equity must come with clean hands.”
Click to expand...

I think the emails will show patterns of the relationship. Remember we’ve been told the charges came out of the blue & had been leaked to Ziegler to get the story out as soon as the receptionist signed they’ve received a letter. I do wonder if City will have asked questions about other clubs & rules not because they expect a response but to show they don’t get investigated.

None of this will clear City but if the irrefutable evidence clears City & then a clear & organised agenda is proved then it must help.
 
blue by birth said:
If it's that easy to prove concealment then either prove it or fuck off
Click to expand...
Think it will be a lot harder to prove concealment, when City were copying Barca,`s payment to the head of the referees association, with both reviewed at the time by their respective FA`s, hence no concealment.
 
Here’s a machievellian thought. The PL came under a load of pressure from the redshirts who continually moaned in public. Right, thought the PL. we’ll show them. So they charged us with as many lines as they could including stuff we had already been cleared of. The aim was not to catch us but to get the redshirts off their backs. When we are cleared, the redshirts will moan a bucketful and the PL will say that they tried ever so hard to make the charges stick, but that damn tribunal let them off.
Problem solved.
 
I wonder whether anybody could help me with this work in progress.

CAS find Manchester City not proven guilty. Meaning evidence hadn't been presented to prove the charges had been acted out beyond emails. UEFA's charges were ONLY,,,, that Manchester city had acted upon the ideas of breaking regulations mooted in emails. I haven't seen the emails, BUT I've no doubt some conversations would suggest ideas that would break regulations that should not be acted upon according to the rules of football organisations, and more importantly to the laws of several countries,) THAT SHOULD NOT be acted upon). This type of discussion takes place in ALL companies around the world.

Every day of the year a quantity surveyor will have a subcontractor wanting to transgress building regulations. The QS would point out to the subcontractor that in the contract with the contractor had a binding contractual obligation to carry out any work according to government regulations. The subcontractor would be trying to save money on the the contract by cutting corners. Every single business in the world has conversations internally were various departments interact so as to establish how close they can sail to regulation while satisfying the profit making, and contractual obligations.

These SPITBALLING emails, I kid you not, from what I have learnt so far is the ONLY evidence UEFA had of accusing several companies and several sets of auditors of carrying out international accountancy fraud which would ultimately be tax fraud, in several countries, and jeopardising for Sheikh Mansour himself a sports empire including 14 teams. All this over piddling little amounts of 30 or so million, jeopardising 10 billions of investment in many different companies including Sheikh Mansour's and several other companies?

UEFA did not charge Manchester City breaking fair market value. And finally said they were fair.

UEFA did not charge Manchester City of financial doping.

UEFA did not charge Manchester City of breaking ANY other regulations.

Now the UEFA charges are pretty much the same as the Premier League charges, and based upon the same evidence as above. UEFA charges cover the period ?? to ??. The PL charges cover 2009/10 to 2017/18. the 2 periods overlap. I court has already been presented with no evidence that Manchester City actually carried out any breaking of legal or sports associations regulations. The emails weren't adequate evidence. So at least timewise that is 50% of the Premier Leagues charges blown out of the water, at least at that time period of that overlap.

"Time barring" I hear people shout. The problem is, the charges of the period after time barring are exactly the same as the charges before time barring. So MCSE carried out all their dirty deals before time barring, and the Premier league will have evidence for that period. What evidence is there beyond the emails? NONE!

UEFA has also found since then all the sponsoring companies were indeed not too closely legally related to Sheikh Mansour.

The Court of arbitration CAS, however did find that UEFA had breached its own guidelines in the investigation and in the many leaks to the press. Sound any different to the PL?
Click to expand...
does anybody know the time period of the UEFA charges.
 

Attachments

  • CAS finding document conclusion 2.png
    CAS finding document conclusion 2.png
    746.6 KB · Views: 141
  • CAS finding document conclusion.png
    CAS finding document conclusion.png
    235.5 KB · Views: 142
Last edited:
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