PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

salfordbluetrue said:
I have little doubt that during our steep learning curve we will have done something wrong, maybe it was copying utd`s image rights? certainly we have filed our accounts late, pretty sure we got punished at the time as well? but the PL having irrefutable evidence of just 1 charge would be meaningless, when you consider the court costs. Just my opinion but the Fair and Accurate 54 charges i believe, got put to bed by Leicester, not so much the appeal, but the PL independent panel that got caught perverting the understanding of the rules, it put a huge amount of pressure on our panel, to only except legal terms. I do think the Panel will allow the non cooperation charges 35 i believe to run, but the burden of suspicion will be raised, a simple accusation would not merit non cooperation on the basis that the information required is not in the rule book. No doubt City will fight these charges individually.
That is where i think City are now, pure guess work, but it is better than the media, who have real lawyers, i only have my video`s of Ironside :)
Click to expand...
I am fairly sure we didn’t file late
 
Anyone else thinking this is the same guy?
Listen to how he constructs his sentences and the pauses as he works out his next bag of bollocks

and
 
MCFC84000 said:
Anyone else thinking this is the same guy?
Listen to how he constructs his sentences and the pauses as he works out his next bag of bollocks

and
Click to expand...


Just another clickbait video, the video attracted this mouth breathing **** along with many others.


@Ozone280​

1 year ago
If City get the boot from the Premier League the City should not be allowed back in until their owners have changed
 
Granted, we dont need to hear that what is said, it is guaranteed bollocks, just the manner in which they speak.
 
halfcenturyup said:
You need to ask a lawyer for that :)

I suppose their are three scenarios:
- the PL can't prove the allegations to the satisfaction of the panel
- the PL can prove the allegations
- the PL can prove the allegations and a criminal investigation follows.

I have no idea if Etihad, for example, could take action against the PL in any of those three situations, tbh.
Click to expand...

Well the pl are accusing Etihad Airways of being cohoots with City to fiddle the books. I'm no expert but I don't see why Etihad Airways couldn't claim damages against the pl, in the same way City could claim damages once we are cleared.

You cannt accuse huge multi billion companies of fraud and not expect them to hit back once cleared.
 
give it to gordon said:
Well the pl are accusing Etihad Airways of being cohoots with City to fiddle the books. I'm no expert but I don't see why Etihad Airways couldn't claim damages against the pl, in the same way City could claim damages once we are cleared.

You cannt accuse huge multi billion companies of fraud and not expect them to hit back once cleared.
Click to expand...
It's an unusual commercial arrangement whereby one company freely enters a contract to pay another company and a trade body intervenes to reduce the price agreed.

In the present case, Etihad are not a party to it. Even if the PL won, City may be bound by PL rules not to go to an external court to appeal, but if it mounts to an accusation of fraud by the sponsor, is there anything to stop the sponsor suing for defamation?

Alternatively, if the judgment is that it was fraudulent, what happens if the club reports itself to the police for fraud, the Crown Prosecution Service reviews the evidence and says there's no prospect of a conviction? (And just imagine the DPP supports one of the PL rivals!)
 
bluemc said:
I don't remember us entering the pitch late 87 times either, but they still went after us for that!
Click to expand...
I’ve always thought half times seem exceptionally long under Pep. The away team is always out before us and often out a few minutes before we are, and it’s still going in this season.
 
I don’t watch The Overlap for obvious reasons but stumbled upon a YouTube clip this morning of Big Steve giving it back to a Cockney Rag who went full City bingo for the cameras: Financial doping, sport washing, State-owned…

Not watching the full clip but I’m sure the impartial adjudicator Jamie Carragher stepped in to reiterate the word “alleged”.
 
Vic said:
It's an unusual commercial arrangement whereby one company freely enters a contract to pay another company and a trade body intervenes to reduce the price agreed.

In the present case, Etihad are not a party to it. Even if the PL won, City may be bound by PL rules not to go to an external court to appeal, but if it mounts to an accusation of fraud by the sponsor, is there anything to stop the sponsor suing for defamation?

Alternatively, if the judgment is that it was fraudulent, what happens if the club reports itself to the police for fraud, the Crown Prosecution Service reviews the evidence and says there's no prospect of a conviction? (And just imagine the DPP supports one of the PL rivals!)
Click to expand...

On your first point, I find it incredible that that is apparently legal. Sure, for the good if the sport, only put what the PL considers as fmv income in the FFP P/L. But no, they gave given themselves the authority to tell a third party, not governed by PL contract and very likely in a different country, to enter into a new contract for a lower amount. They have even given themselves the power to increase the amount the third party pays if they consider it undervalued. I still can't understand how that is legal.

On your other two points, I have been saying that since early last year. It's one of the many reasons I think the PL doesn't have a chance of finding the club guilty of the most serious charges. What panel is going to make a "guilty" finding then to have a criminal investigation not even started, refused on the grounds of insufficient evidence or to have one concluded without a guilty verdict. Yes, the lawyers can talk about different jurisdictions with different standards of proof, but it would be hugely destructive to the reputation of the PL and its disciplinary procedures. I am pretty sure the panel will bear that in mind when coming to their conclusions even applying a higher standard of proof than usual. Super-cogency, if you will.
 
halfcenturyup said:
On your first point, I find it incredible that that is apparently legal. Sure, for the good if the sport, only put what the PL considers as fmv income in the FFP P/L. But no, they gave given themselves the authority to tell a third party, not governed by PL contract and very likely in a different country, to enter into a new contract for a lower amount. They have even given themselves the power to increase the amount the third party pays if they consider it undervalued. I still can't understand how that is legal.

On your other two points, I have been saying that since early last year. It's one of the many reasons I think the PL doesn't have a chance of finding the club guilty of the most serious charges. What panel is going to make a "guilty" finding then to have a criminal investigation not even started, refused on the grounds of insufficient evidence or to have one concluded without a guilty verdict. Yes, the lawyers can talk about different jurisdictions with different standards of proof, but it would be hugely destructive to the reputation of the PL and its disciplinary procedures. I am pretty sure the panel will bear that in mind when coming to their conclusions even applying a higher standard of proof than usual. Super-cogency, if you will.
Click to expand...
Vic said:
It's an unusual commercial arrangement whereby one company freely enters a contract to pay another company and a trade body intervenes to reduce the price agreed.

In the present case, Etihad are not a party to it. Even if the PL won, City may be bound by PL rules not to go to an external court to appeal, but if it mounts to an accusation of fraud by the sponsor, is there anything to stop the sponsor suing for defamation?
Click to expand...

Given what is being inferred from the charges themselves what would have prevented Etihad & Etsilat from making a claim against the PL at an earlier stage?

It might have been a useful tactic to try and grease the wheels.
 
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