PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[slbsn]

Stefan as a complete novice on this, it would seem the main remit of the charges is that our accounts are false, but seeing as numbers are finite are they trying to prove that our accounts are false and there is a secondary set of accounts or that our numbers are wrong full stop, im just curious how u disprove numbers?

I don’t think the PL are going as far as saying we had different sets of accounts rather they allege (and need to prove) that a substantial amount of recorded revenue on the actual accounts was not revenue at all and that the audited accounts are, therefore, all materially wrong and deliberately so. There are similar charges relating to under stating of expenses too.

 

[mancboy]

I don’t think the PL are going as far as saying we had different sets of accounts rather they allege (and need to prove) that a substantial amount of recorded revenue on the actual accounts was not revenue at all and that the audited accounts are, therefore, all materially wrong and deliberately so. There are similar charges relating to under stating of expenses too.

So again from a novice perspective arent they therefore alleging fraud and false accounting on our behalf which would be a criminal offence?

 

[slbsn]

Can someone give me a summary of what this means?

I deleted my Twitter account a while ago and this thread has a billion pages of people talking bollocks

Very likely nothing, if it does mean something it could mean something either way (good or bad) and even if true, nobody ever confirmed the hearing duration anyway so we don’t know how long it was actually meant to run

 

[Johnny Mars Bar]

Very likely nothing, if it does mean something it could mean something either way (good or bad) and even if true, nobody ever confirmed the hearing duration anyway so we don’t know how long it was actually meant to run

Thanks Stefan. Figured as much.

 

[slbsn]

So again from a novice perspective arent they therefore alleging fraud and false accounting on our behalf which would be a criminal offence?

Yes it could be if ever pursued in a criminal context but it hasn’t been to date. Cases like this do get investigated by organisations like the Serious Fraud Office and the SEC/DOJ in the US. A good example is Autonomy which has had a lot of coverage recently https://www.cio.com/article/304397/the-hp-autonomy-lawsuit-timeline-of-an-ma-disaster.html?amp=1

 

[mancboy]

Yes it could be if ever pursued in a criminal context but it hasn’t been to date. Cases like this do get investigated by organisations like the Serious Fraud Office and the SEC/DOJ in the US. A good example is Autonomy which has had a lot of coverage recently https://www.cio.com/article/304397/the-hp-autonomy-lawsuit-timeline-of-an-ma-disaster.html?amp=1

If they had the relevant evidence is there any reason they wouldnt present it to the SFO or FCA or is the evidentiary standard different when it comes to those bodies?

 

[slbsn]

If they had the relevant evidence is there any reason they wouldnt present it to the SFO or FCA or is the evidentiary standard different when it comes to those bodies?

FCA not relevant here. But SFO charge in the criminal courts so the decision for them is a two-stage test to determine whether to prosecute a case:

1. Evidential Stage Test: is there sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction from a jury on a “beyond reasonable doubt” standard;
2. Public Interest Stage Test: If the evidential stage is met, the SFO then considers whether a prosecution is in the public interest.

 

[mancboy]

FCA not relevant here. But SFO charge in the criminal courts so the decision for them is a two-stage test to determine whether to prosecute a case:

1. Evidential Stage Test: is there sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction from a jury on a “beyond reasonable doubt” standard;
2. Public Interest Stage Test: If the evidential stage is met, the SFO then considers whether a prosecution is in the public interest.

If it were to go the wrong way would questions be asked as to why the evidence accepted by the pl panel was not enough to be accepted in a criminal court or are the standards different?

 

[slbsn]

If it were to go the wrong way would questions be asked as to why the evidence accepted by the pl panel was not enough to be accepted in a criminal court or are the standards different?

Other way round. PL is balance of probabilities, SFO etc is beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[richards30]

Other way round. PL is balance of probabilities, SFO etc is beyond reasonable doubt.

Hey Stefan, well done for all you do in the media but any chance you could call Simon Jordan an arrogant wanker next time you are on Talksport please? ;-)

 

[Newman Noggs]

FCA not relevant here. But SFO charge in the criminal courts so the decision for them is a two-stage test to determine whether to prosecute a case:

1. Evidential Stage Test: is there sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction from a jury on a “beyond reasonable doubt” standard;
2. Public Interest Stage Test: If the evidential stage is met, the SFO then considers whether a prosecution is in the public interest.

As you know, given the number of referrals the SFO receives, there is an initial "vetting" stage where a decision is made whether to investigate at all. Considerations would include the nature of the "victims" and whether an alternative remedy such as civil action is available which, in this case there is. Another factor is '"staleness".

I'd suggest that, if the SFO were minded to exercise its considerable powers in this case, it would have done so before now and we'd know about it.

 

[Centurions]

Hey Stefan, well done for all you do in the media but any chance you could call Simon Jordan an arrogant wanker on your last & final appearance on Talksport please? ;-)

Corrected ;)

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Hey Stefan, well done for all you do in the media but any chance you could call Simon Jordan an arrogant wanker next time you are on Talksport please? ;-)

And strangle Jim White with his yellow tie.

 

[Truesilverblue]

Wenger believes City are not guilty of anything of a serious nature and at the most expects a fine only maybe a few points deducted if they are indeed found guilty if anything. The red cartel want be too pleased about that

 

[The perfect fumble]

Can someone give me a summary of what this means?

I deleted my Twitter account a while ago and this thread has a billion pages of people talking bollocks

I'll tell you what I think it means.

We've won.

Why?

Coz if the Premier League have nailed our bollocks to the floor in record time, we'd have gone down swinging, using every second and all means possible to prove our innocence, no way would we agree to throw in the towel early. Besides, when the judgement comes in it'll be close to six years since the investigation began, they've not managed to nail us in six years! I doubt they've been able to suddenly do it in six weeks.

Why?

Because, as those who know the ins and outs of this case have stated on numerous occasions, in the absence of a smoking gun, and there's never been any indication the Premier League have such a thing. It was always going to be immensely difficult and time consuming for the League to prove fraud on this scale, over such a long period, involving so many people. I would argue that a lengthy "trial" would be a prerequisite for the League to win such a complex case

Complex cases take time, "trials" cut short for want of evidence do not, and as has been stated many times, this "trial is a house of cards. If fraud cannot be proven once, it cannot be proven for a whole chunk of the 115, and given the fact that the Mancini and Yaya nonsense is clearly small potato bollocks, this shit show always had the potential to collapse quickly if the Premier League had fuck all.

I'm not a lawyer so this is just my opinion, and I'm assuming we have leverage with the independent commission to demand time to slug it out to the final round if needs must. But if we do have such leverage, Khaldoon doesn't seem minded to call it a day early if we're on the ropes, he'd only do that if our opponent was out for the count.

 

[Phil1]

Tolmie must be breathing a sigh of relief now Richards30 has a new poster to stalk..

:-)

 

[Kinkys Left Foot]

As the SFO is a publicly funded operation, they subject to Freedom of Information requests from the general public
Anyone want to make such a request if they had received a referral to investigate the City fraud allegations?

Stages of a case​

Intelligence gathering or “pre-investigation” stage

The SFO receives information on possible criminal activity from a variety of sources, including whistleblowers, victims, other law enforcement agencies, the media, corporations themselves (“self reports”), and those in competition with them. This information is analysed and the potential for the alleged activity to become the subject of a criminal investigation is assessed by our Intelligence Unit, a team of intelligence operatives, lawyers, accredited financial intelligence officers, analysts and investigators.

The Intelligence Unit also undertakes its own research and proactively develops information. The unit has unique pre-investigation powers available under Section 2A of the Criminal Justice Act 1987 that are used to help determine whether to commence an investigation where it appears bribery and corruption may have taken place.

The Director can accept a case for criminal investigation if, in his judgment, it meets his Statement of Principle and if he considers there are reasonable grounds to suspect serious or complex fraud.

Investigation and prosecution

Once a case is accepted by the Director, investigators and lawyers work together from the start. This way of working is known in the UK as the Roskill model and is an exception to the normal practice in this country, in which crime is generally investigated by a police force and the evidence passed to the CPS to decide whether to prosecute. The SFO was set up differently because our cases need strong cooperation and management from both lawyers and investigators all the way through, to make sure that the lines of investigation are the best ones to uncover criminal activity, and eventually prove it in court.

Deferred Prosecution Agreements

If the investigation results in enough evidence to a support a realistic prospect of conviction, and if a prosecution is considered to be in the public interest, charges will be normally be brought. Alternatively the Director of the SFO may consider inviting a company to enter negotiations for a Deferred Prosecution Agreement. The SFO’s first DPA was with Standard Bank in 2015. Subsequent DPAs were agreed with Sarclad Ltd in 2016 and with Rolls-Royce and Tesco in 2017. In 2019, DPAs were agreed with Serco Geografix Ltd and Güralp Systems Ltd. In 2020, a DPAs were agreed with Airbus SE, G4S Care & Justice Services (UK) Ltd and Airline Services Ltd. In 2021, a DPA was agreed with Amec Foster Wheeler Energy Limited and with two companies for Bribery Act offences.

Trial

If we decide to prosecute the alleged criminals, there will often be a court trial.

How to make a Freedom of Information request​

1. Read about the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act and how to make a request.

2. Check to see whether the information you would like to request is already available. The SFO already publishes information relating to its:

• Active and previous cases on its website;
• Performance, case data, and finances in its Annual Report and Accounts;
• Purchasing and commercial contracts on GOV.UK’s Contracts Finder;
• Workforce and human resources through Civil Service statistics.

3. Consider whether the information you would like to request is a matter of court record, which would mean the SFO cannot release it in response to an FOI request. You may instead wish to apply directly to the relevant court to request such information, details of which are available here.

4. Make a new request by contacting us on: information.officer@sfo.gov.uk

 

[Johnny Mars Bar]

I tell you what I think it means.

We've won.

Why?

Coz if the Premier League has nailed our bollocks to the floor in record time, we'd go down swinging, using every second and all means possible to prove our innocence, no way would we agree to throw in the towel early. Besides, when the judgement comes in it'll be close to six years since the investigation began, they've not managed to nail us in six years! I doubt they've been able to suddenly do it in six weeks.

Why?

Because, as those who know the ins and outs of this case have stated on numerous occasions, in the absence of a smoking gun, and there's never been any indication the Premier League has such a thing. It was always going to be immensely difficult and time consuming for the Premier League to prove fraud on this scale, over such a long period, involving so many people. I would argue that a lengthy "trial" would be a prerequisite for the Premier League to win such a complex case

Complex cases take time, "trials" cut short for want of evidence do not, and has been stated many times, this "trial is a house of cards, if fraud cannot be proven once, it cannot be proven for a whole chunk of the 115, and given the fact that the Mancini and Yaya nonsense is clearly small potato bollocks, this shit show always had the potential to collapse quickly if the Premier League had fuck all.

I'm not a lawyer so this is just my opinion, and I'm assuming we have leverage with the independent commission to demand time to slug it out to the final round if needs must. But if we do have such leverage, Khaldoon doesn't seem minded to call it a day early if we're on the ropes, he'd only do that if our opponent was out for the count.

Hope you’re right of course but if @slbsn thinks it means little then respectfully, I’ll trust his judgement.

 

[The perfect fumble]

Very likely nothing, if it does mean something it could mean something either way (good or bad) and even if true, nobody ever confirmed the hearing duration anyway so we don’t know how long it was actually meant to run

True.

But am I being naive to think that time and complexity are related. I remember you stating on Talk Sport that in the real world a fraud case like this might well take months, with the onus on the prosecution. If our "trial" has ended early does that not indicate, on the balance of probability, that the prosecution has struggled to prove its case?

 

[Dribble]

I'd suggest that, if the SFO were minded to exercise its considerable powers in this case, it would have done so before now and we'd know about it.

Game, set & fuckin match!

That's EXACTLY why I stopped stressing about FFP, PSR & APT months ago. The fact these accusations are all over the media, & football being mentioned in Parliament with a regulator on the way, would pass any public interest test.

The fact our audited & certified accounts have been submitted to Companies House for the world to scrutinise, tells me the authorities have had a sniff, smelled bullshit & moved along not wanting to embarrass themselves.

Here's the key... The PL's private members club RULES, are NOT UK Law. Something that may breach FFP, PSR or APT probably won't be illegal in a criminal or civil court of law. This is why the two times external arbiters have looked into the allegations against Manchester City, they've told UEFA & the PL to stop being silly.

The only reason FFP, PSR & APT are still a thing is because their legality in UK & EU Law has never been tested. When faced with bitter opposition fans calling us cheats, I'm yet to happen across ONE who can name me another industry sector, where an owner is barred from investing their money into their business as they see fit.

If FFP, PSR & APT were applied to the British business sector, they'd cause more devastation than Brexit!