PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[SilverFox2]

Get two of them going t the same time s Lord P seems to have done for early 25.

 

[halfcenturyup]

This for me is the key thing. What city are accused of is vast fraud/falsification of accounts, and if the 'evidence' met the threshold of legal proof then this would be a police/Interpol/HMRC and CPS matter. I'd have thought PL hearings would have to wait for the outcome of that to avoid prejudicing the legal process. So, I suppose the good news is the 115 are bollocks in legal terms, the worse news is that the PL as a private club are judge, jury and executioner and what counts as sufficient 'proof' may in that case be much less.

But there is no evidence in the public domain to even start a criminal investigation, let alone a prosecution. If the club has done what is alleged and the PL can prove it in front of the panel, then that is the time for consideration of criminal proceedings, if any.

And the PL may well be the prosecution but they aren't judge, jury or executioner. The panel will have impeccable credentials, akin to those at the APT tribunal I would imagine, and will certainly be impartial. You will see :)

 

[petrusha]

It IS possible, that the club were operating within the rules, or were and still are convinced that is what they were doing. And that it is down to a matter of interpretation of detail rather than deliberate and conscious deceit as is alleged.

In the same way that for example the PL might not have set out to deliberately introduce unlawful ATP regulations, and thought, with legal advice that they had, that these were ok.

And that there is a version in which both of what you say above coexist.

I'd note that the most serious of the 'charges', which are the ones relating to the inflation of sponsorships, are worded so that the accusations specifically refer to the club acting in bad faith. That in effect means that we deliberately undertook wrongful actions in full knowledge of what we were doing.

And then there's the fact that certain of the other matters are prima facie time-barred under the Limitation Act 1980 (Mancini's contract, image rights payments and possibly the Etihad and Aabar sponsorships). The only way those matters aren't time-barred is if the PL can prove fraud and/or deliberate concealment.

Make no mistake, this is emphatically NOT just a matter of "interpretation of detail". We're being accused of systematically producing false accounts for a period of almost a decade to disguise the true nature of payments that were to the club's benefit but allegedly contravened the rules.

Given the nature of the allegations we face, it's not remotely credible or conceivable that City's execs could possibly have been acting in the manner they purportedly were under the PL's version of events while thinking they were remaining within the rules. These are highly experienced business people with impressive track records, and they know fraudulent actions when they see them.

As has been regularly reported with great glee in the media, if the PL lands any of the most serious charges, the result will be a points deduction or even expulsion. That wouldn't be the case if this were just a dust-up over the nuances of interpreting which accounting treatment should be applied to certain business operations.

For it as the regulator to decide to prosecute 'charges' that entail the club having acted fraudulently in the way it's accused of doing, one would reasonably expect the PL to have evidence that give it a realistic prospect of reaching the necessary standard of proof. City, on he other hand, claim to have "irrefutable* evidence" of the club's innocence.

There might be a way that the two above positions could coexist. However, it seems to me to be so fanciful and to have such a vanishingly small chance of being true that IMO serious commentary should disregard it.

* - I dislike the word "irrefutable", which the club has chosen to use in various public statements. There's almost no evidence whatsoever that's really open to no question at all. However, I accept that we want to come across as bullish, and in any case the same points apply if we were to replace it with something like "compelling" or even to dial that down and say "strong".

 

[johnny crossan]

* - I dislike the word "irrefutable", which the club has chosen to use in various public statements. There's almost no evidence whatsoever that's really open to no question at all. However, I accept that we want to come across as bullish, and in any case the same points apply if we were to replace it with something like "compelling" or even to dial that down and say "strong".

How about "unassailable"? (Better than 'incontrovertible' anyway :-)

 

[cheekybids]

But there is no evidence in the public domain to even start a criminal investigation, let alone a prosecution. If the club has done what is alleged and the PL can prove it in front of the panel, then that is the time for consideration of criminal proceedings, if any.

And the PL may well be the prosecution but they aren't judge, jury or executioner. The panel will have impeccable credentials, akin to those at the APT tribunal I would imagine, and will certainly be impartial. You will see :)

There was the same evidence “none” for this investigation but if there was a suspicion of a crime it would be investigated, that’s the point.

 

[cheekybids]

I'd note that the most serious of the 'charges', which are the ones relating to the inflation of sponsorships, are worded so that the accusations specifically refer to the club acting in bad faith. That in effect means that we deliberately undertook wrongful actions in full knowledge of what we were doing.

And then there's the fact that certain of the other matters are prima facie time-barred under the Limitation Act 1980 (Mancini's contract, image rights payments and possibly the Etihad and Aabar sponsorships). The only way those matters aren't time-barred is if the PL can prove fraud and/or deliberate concealment.

Make no mistake, this is emphatically NOT just a matter of "interpretation of detail". We're being accused of systematically producing false accounts for a period of almost a decade to disguise the true nature of payments that were to the club's benefit but allegedly contravened the rules.

Given the nature of the allegations we face, it's not remotely credible or conceivable that City's execs could possibly have been acting in the manner they purportedly were under the PL's version of events while thinking they were remaining within the rules. These are highly experienced business people with impressive track records, and they know fraudulent actions when they see them.

As has been regularly reported with great glee in the media, if the PL lands any of the most serious charges, the result will be a points deduction or even expulsion. That wouldn't be the case if this were just a dust-up over the nuances of interpreting which accounting treatment should be applied to certain business operations.

For it as the regulator to decide to prosecute 'charges' that entail the club having acted fraudulently in the way it's accused of doing, one would reasonably expect the PL to have evidence that give it a realistic prospect of reaching the necessary standard of proof. City, on he other hand, claim to have "irrefutable* evidence" of the club's innocence.

There might be a way that the two above positions could coexist. However, it seems to me to be so fanciful and to have such a vanishingly small chance of being true that IMO serious commentary should disregard it.

* - I dislike the word "irrefutable", which the club has chosen to use in various public statements. There's almost no evidence whatsoever that's really open to no question at all. However, I accept that we want to come across as bullish, and in any case the same points apply if we were to replace it with something like "compelling" or even to dial that down and say "strong".

I don’t see how you can’t claim to have irrefutable evidence. I think City believe once it’s in front of a fair & impartial panel it will be considered irrefutable.

 

[Invisible Man's Bandage]

Fuck me , then pending a potential appeal we looking at summer?

The outcome of any appeal would be highly unlikely by the end of next year from what our experts have said. Once the initial judgement has been released both parties would then have their legal teams on it and one or both might decide to appeal. That process takes time to get their arguments together and then the appeal panel has to fix a period for the hearing. You then have all the time of the appeal panel deliberating before releasing a judgement.

March 2026 would be my prediction based on fuck all other than every part of the process takes forever.

 

[halfcenturyup]

I'd note that the most serious of the 'charges', which are the ones relating to the inflation of sponsorships, are worded so that the accusations specifically refer to the club acting in bad faith. That in effect means that we deliberately undertook wrongful actions in full knowledge of what we were doing.

And then there's the fact that certain of the other matters are prima facie time-barred under the Limitation Act 1980 (Mancini's contract, image rights payments and possibly the Etihad and Aabar sponsorships). The only way those matters aren't time-barred is if the PL can prove fraud and/or deliberate concealment.

Make no mistake, this is emphatically NOT just a matter of "interpretation of detail". We're being accused of systematically producing false accounts for a period of almost a decade to disguise the true nature of payments that were to the club's benefit but allegedly contravened the rules.

Given the nature of the allegations we face, it's not remotely credible or conceivable that City's execs could possibly have been acting in the manner they purportedly were under the PL's version of events while thinking they were remaining within the rules. These are highly experienced business people with impressive track records, and they know fraudulent actions when they see them.

As has been regularly reported with great glee in the media, if the PL lands any of the most serious charges, the result will be a points deduction or even expulsion. That wouldn't be the case if this were just a dust-up over the nuances of interpreting which accounting treatment should be applied to certain business operations.

For it as the regulator to decide to prosecute 'charges' that entail the club having acted fraudulently in the way it's accused of doing, one would reasonably expect the PL to have evidence that give it a realistic prospect of reaching the necessary standard of proof. City, on he other hand, claim to have "irrefutable* evidence" of the club's innocence.

There might be a way that the two above positions could coexist. However, it seems to me to be so fanciful and to have such a vanishingly small chance of being true that IMO serious commentary should disregard it.

* - I dislike the word "irrefutable", which the club has chosen to use in various public statements. There's almost no evidence whatsoever that's really open to no question at all. However, I accept that we want to come across as bullish, and in any case the same points apply if we were to replace it with something like "compelling" or even to dial that down and say "strong".

What he said :)

 

[M18CTID]

This for me is the key thing. What city are accused of is vast fraud/falsification of accounts, and if the 'evidence' met the threshold of legal proof then this would be a police/Interpol/HMRC and CPS matter. I'd have thought PL hearings would have to wait for the outcome of that to avoid prejudicing the legal process. So, I suppose the good news is the 115 are bollocks in legal terms, the worse news is that the PL as a private club are judge, jury and executioner and what counts as sufficient 'proof' may in that case be much less.

As already pointed out, they're not judge, jury, and executioner. That's the independent panel. And because many of the charges are of a very serious nature, they'll need some pretty compelling evidence to find against us. The PL may well be a private club but even if they were judging this case themselves they'd still have to be very careful and wouldn't get away with reaching a clearly bent decision as City would take them to the cleaners.

 

[halfcenturyup]

I don’t see how you can’t claim to have irrefutable evidence. I think City believe once it’s in front of a fair & impartial panel it will be considered irrefutable.

I would just take it as a sign of how confident the club was in its position. Everyone was clamouring for a strong statement against the allegations, and that is what we got. We will find out soon enough if it was bollocks or not :)

 

[Bez]

I don’t see how you can’t claim to have irrefutable evidence. I think City believe once it’s in front of a fair & impartial panel it will be considered irrefutable.

I agree. I think there are situations where evidence can be irrefutable. For example, if Joe Bloggs accused Jim Potts of killing Kevin Keegan because Jim Potts had sent an email saying he was going to kill Kevin Keegan, but Kevin Keegan is alive and well and has not been subject to an attack, then this is irrefutable evidence that Kevin Keegan has not been killed. The email is just an email. Nothing more. Hopefully City have irrefutable evidence. The sooner the 115 circus is over the better.

 

[halfcenturyup]

There was the same evidence “none” for this investigation but if there was a suspicion of a crime it would be investigated, that’s the point.

Hmm.... tbf, there was enough evidence to start an investigation for breach of contract, even CAS agreed that was the case and so, if iirc, did the club. But I don't think anyone really is of the opinion that there is currently sufficient evidence in the public domain for a criminal investigation.

That may change if the serious allegations are proven but even then there is no certainty.

All imho, of course.

 

[petrusha]

How about "unassailable"? (Better than 'incontrovertible' anyway :-)

Yes, "incontrovertible" is rather ugly. I do like "unassailable@, though.

I don’t see how you can’t claim to have irrefutable evidence. I think City believe once it’s in front of a fair & impartial panel it will be considered irrefutable.

I assume they were looking for a way to express implacable confidence rather than to withstand a detailed semantic analysis. :)

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

As already pointed out, they're not judge, jury, and executioner. That's the independent panel. And because many of the charges are of a very serious nature, they'll need some pretty compelling evidence to find against us. The PL may well be a private club but even if they were judging this case themselves they'd still have to be very careful and wouldn't get away with reaching a clearly bent decision as City would take them to the cleaners.

Sorry, but I'll believe the independence of the panel only when they tell the PL to get to fuck. And yes, I'm a Bertie blue specs.

 

[Coatigan]

I'd note that the most serious of the 'charges', which are the ones relating to the inflation of sponsorships, are worded so that the accusations specifically refer to the club acting in bad faith. That in effect means that we deliberately undertook wrongful actions in full knowledge of what we were doing.

And then there's the fact that certain of the other matters are prima facie time-barred under the Limitation Act 1980 (Mancini's contract, image rights payments and possibly the Etihad and Aabar sponsorships). The only way those matters aren't time-barred is if the PL can prove fraud and/or deliberate concealment.

Make no mistake, this is emphatically NOT just a matter of "interpretation of detail". We're being accused of systematically producing false accounts for a period of almost a decade to disguise the true nature of payments that were to the club's benefit but allegedly contravened the rules.

Given the nature of the allegations we face, it's not remotely credible or conceivable that City's execs could possibly have been acting in the manner they purportedly were under the PL's version of events while thinking they were remaining within the rules. These are highly experienced business people with impressive track records, and they know fraudulent actions when they see them.

As has been regularly reported with great glee in the media, if the PL lands any of the most serious charges, the result will be a points deduction or even expulsion. That wouldn't be the case if this were just a dust-up over the nuances of interpreting which accounting treatment should be applied to certain business operations.

For it as the regulator to decide to prosecute 'charges' that entail the club having acted fraudulently in the way it's accused of doing, one would reasonably expect the PL to have evidence that give it a realistic prospect of reaching the necessary standard of proof. City, on he other hand, claim to have "irrefutable* evidence" of the club's innocence.

There might be a way that the two above positions could coexist. However, it seems to me to be so fanciful and to have such a vanishingly small chance of being true that IMO serious commentary should disregard it.

* - I dislike the word "irrefutable", which the club has chosen to use in various public statements. There's almost no evidence whatsoever that's really open to no question at all. However, I accept that we want to come across as bullish, and in any case the same points apply if we were to replace it with something like "compelling" or even to dial that down and say "strong".

Ok, if you say so pal.

(In a 'fair enough you know more so I believe that' way, rather than sarcastic dismissal, just for clarity).

A part of me can see a verdict that is muddy and open to interpretation, like finding we commited 'technical breaches' but did not outright deceive or inflate revenue etc.

But then, the CAS verdict was pretty unambiguous (MCFC did not disguise funding), and our media still found ways to interpret that disingenuously, so doesn't really matter I guess, it will be muddy and go on for a long time yet regardless.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

* - I dislike the word "irrefutable", which the club has chosen to use in various public statements. There's almost no evidence whatsoever that's really open to no question at all. However, I accept that we want to come across as bullish, and in any case the same points apply if we were to replace it with something like "compelling" or even to dial that down and say "strong".

I would have been far happier with ‘shits all over’…

 

[Invisible Man's Bandage]

Irrefutable, strong, compelling, shits all over etc is just posturing anyway...

Means nothing untill the judgement is released.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Irrefutable, strong, compelling, shits all over etc is just posturing anyway...

Means nothing untill the judgement is released.

Judgment…

:-)

 

[Invisible Man's Bandage]

Judgment…

:-)

Again I'll have to defer to your specialist knowledge....

 

[halfcenturyup]

Again I'll have to defer to your specialist knowledge....

Knowldge ....