If there was evidence presented at the hearing of fraud, that evidence has been provided by either City or the PL, and I would assume the CPS, HMRC etc can just demand to see it? I can’t see that they would be behind the premier league in a queue to take action
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules
- Thread starter ayrshire_blue
- Start date
You don’t have to answer if they are making a potential criminal enquiry.If there was evidence presented at the hearing of fraud, that evidence has been provided by either City or the PL, and I would assume the CPS, HMRC etc can just demand to see it? I can’t see that they would be behind the premier league in a queue to take action
I always say: No comment.
Last edited:
Cobwebcat
Well-Known Member
I wonder if the HMRC would even be interested given that we are accused of putting more money into the club rather than hiding it. If anything we would be paying more tax by stating our turnover is bigger than it actually is. I’m not an expert in this field as you may tell.
StillBluessinceHydeRoad
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2020
- Messages
- 2,454
- Team supported
- City
Yes, they dropped the cup and grass charges pretty sharpish.The way Leicester highlighted the Premier League’s interpretation of wordings on its own rules to make them look silly. Also that these charges are a deeper dive rehash of the CAS hearing with other things bolted on as hit and hopes in image rights and manager renumeration, leads me to believe that when this is done we will be asking the same questions of the Premier League that were highlighted with Uefa as to what led them believe they could land what was being alleged.
manimanc
Well-Known Member
Got 12 on it i think.That album can only have 1 track on it surely?
All the same song just 12 different mixes.
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
Well I always seemed to come away from those discussions feeling out of pocket so I guess so, as a minimum.Did your Dad ever get back the tenner he was owed?
Father Paul
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 18 Jun 2015
- Messages
- 5,200
Very much doubt they could keep this secret if as indicated it could last for days.Nobody knows. PL keeps hearings of this nature secret to avoid the inevitable media circuses. The first anyone knew about the Everton, Forest and Leicester hearings was when the decisions were announced.
I’m shocked that Masters actually gave any clues about the possible timeframe when he referred to September as being likely.
HelloCity
Well-Known Member
And no doubt they will be granted every exemption they ask for
cheekybids
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 12,903
Why doesn’t somebody give the Chambers of Lord Pannick a quick call and see when he is next free.
If it’s late December then we know its started.
I’m joking in case anybody thinks this is real !
We track players on planes & stake out hospitals for medicals……. What makes you think no one would call the chambers ;)
Perhaps Everton fans will boot off about this instead of bizarrely simultaneously thinking the PL rules are corrupt and we (the team given 115 charges for apparently breaking them) are also corrupt
cheekybids
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 12,903
And no doubt they will be granted every exemption they ask for
Exemptions for what?? They've sacked loads of staff?
Don’t think they would any enquiry would prejudice the juryThe authorities will wait for the outcome as the hearing may provide evidence.
It is not a public enquiry but a private arbitration of a civil dispute. Don’t mix the two up.Don’t think they would any enquiry would prejudice the jury
deano ou812
Well-Known Member
Ahhh yes the old exemptions,once they are taken into account then everything will be ok,just like the Covid allowance’s.
If I was Everton,Forest and even Leicester I’d be keeping an eye on this and see how the premier league actually deal with it,wouldn’t be holding my breath it’s one rule for some while the rest just have to suck it up or otherwise know your place ..
The accusation would be one of uttering false accounts contrary to Company law rather than tax fraud. Didn’t Tesco fall foul of this a few years ago?I wonder if the HMRC would even be interested given that we are accused of putting more money into the club rather than hiding it. If anything we would be paying more tax by stating our turnover is bigger than it actually is. I’m not an expert in this field as you may tell.
I think you can assume Pannick and others have blocked out 2024 for some time - probably since May/June. Won't confirm exact kick off. If the hearing really is 10-12 weeks, skeleton drafting and witness cross examination plans would have been taking a huge amount of time. And of course all of June was taken with the APT case which we know Pannick was also on.Why doesn’t somebody give the Chambers of Lord Pannick a quick call and see when he is next free.
If it’s late December then we know its started.
I’m joking in case anybody thinks this is real !
I'm confident it will leak when the hearing kicks off in person.
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 14,938
I don’t and they’re fair comments. Ive just read on here multiple times (by several posters) that we would never provide them with commercially sensitive material.
I don't think it's anything to do with commercial sensitivity. The club were required by the courts to provide everything the PL asked for provided it was within the scope of their investigation (grosso modo). I doubt very much the club didn't comply with that requirement. But that doesn't mean the club was prevented from challenging the PL on their requests and it certainly doesn't mean that the PL could get information from third parties. I am guessing the non-cooperation takes three forms: taking all action possible to delay the investigation; challenging requests for information from inside the company; and not providing information from external parties.
Back to your question. When you are facing a hostile investigation, and after the UEFA investigation and verdict I think there is no doubt that is how it would be judged by the club, you do everything you can to limit the information you give to the investigators. Why? To slow them down, to make them as uncomfortable as possible and to control the flow of information yourself. If the club would have volunteered information in good faith the PL would undoubtedly have had to investigate that information further and, most likely, ask for more. It would be never ending and there may be other things they could find that they may not like. No, you want to control the information flow yourself. In this case by only providing what you think you have to, and then providing what you want to at the right time. In front of the panel.
One of the reasons I am so confident in the club's position is that they have cleverly forced the PL into this disciplinary process by withholding external information so they can effectively decide what external information to provide, knowing what evidence the PL has. They are controlling the information flow to a very large extent. If they were in the least worried they would have provided the information and settled a long time ago.
If they had the evidence why did they wait 5 years to bring charges?
I assume they collated more evidence, there is also degrees as to what that evidence shows.
If it was 100% clear then your point is valid, but if not it would make sense for them to continue to collate.
My q was more if they have none, what are we doing for 12 weeks