PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[domalino]

Fraud=criminal=beyond reasonable doubt

Civil=balance of probabilities

The Key Differences Between Criminal And Civil Law - Bell Lamb & Joynson Solicitors

Whether you need to know about criminal law or civil law right now, or you just want to gain an understanding for the future, we’ve got you covered.

www.bljsolicitors.co.uk

I’m not a lawyer but even I know civil fraud is a thing.

The burden of proof is determined by the venue, hence why we have civil rape trials, where the burden of proof is still balance of probabilities despite the fact it’s about whether a crime took place.

 

[ayrshire_blue]

I don't know if this means anything at all in relation to our case, it might be irrelevant, but just felt it's worth adding as he chaired our hearing which is currently awaiting a verdict.

Edit - it was a five year tenure which is ending in the new year. So nothing out of the ordinary. Still worthy of adding to discussion, perhaps.

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

Well, this narrative that a 'red cartel'/'PL cabal' assembled in an under ground bunker, and created FFPR to stop Arab owners, could not be further from the truth. The Glazers, Gillet & Hicks, Kroenke & Lerner did not want anyone snooping around in their financials, especially after saddling those clubs with huge debts from LBO's and asset stripping for their own financial gain. And Arsenal had just spent 1 billion on a new stadium. Abramovic was definitely not in favour of financial regulation, either.

FFPR came from France and Germany. It was not created here. The only reason why it was adopted so wholeheartedly by the PL, was to stop their prized assets from being bought out by American businessmen and hedge funds trying to make a quick buck. They feared that if enough American owners could get a strangle hold over the league, then the possibility of a European Super league would be unstoppable. And it almost did happen. FFPR was the only thing that they could use to put them off. They also tried to get a law passed that LBO's had to be approved by the minister for sport.

I can't say that's my impression. And I also thought the architects were utd and bayern and applied at UEFA's level rather than French league level.

 

[halfcenturyup]

But even English law has exemptions and caveats. The 6 year limit for arbitration only applies to awards / judgments but does not apply to evidence. So evidence gathered or related to a time period beyond the 6 years can still be used if it can be demonstrated as relevant to events within the 6 year limit.

The PL will most likely also be arguing that City hindered their investigations so the PL only became aware of breaches quite some time after they had occurred (and the discovery was within 6 years).

I think it's slightly wishful thinking to believe a time bar will prevail on most of the charges. Furthermore, if that were to be the case it would only cement the belief that we got off on a technicality. In many ways, if the club is innocent we don't want any time bar, we want a categorical declaration of innocence.
Sadly I think the PL have backed themselves into a corner where they need to come out with at least some win (or verdict they can present as a win). That sucks and suggests their primary goal IS to have City punished. Their prime goal should always be to reach the correct decision based on the facts and fair judgment and adapt the rules fairly and transparently in the true interests of the sport, not specific clubs.

I suspect we have been 'creative' in some of our practices, in the same way most clubs are. This is natural behaviour for any business... how to maximise benefits by being creative but within the rules. Sadly, I think some of the rules will be interpreted in ways that make City look bad. The 115+ charges are really multiple instances of certain allegations, but even so, it's hard to imagine where every single interpretation of the rules goes in our favour. The question then will be 'if City breached rule x, due to the interpretation being rules as...' then how many others now fall into breach?

It's one thing to have 115 breaches thrown at us, it's quite another to make some of those breaches stick without it sticking forgotten clubs too.

This has all been discussed forwards, sideways and backwards in the last 7800 pages, and by people better qualified than you or I, apparently. And you were so nearly there in many of your points ....

 

[Citi-leaks]

I can't say that's my impression. And I also thought the architects were utd and bayern and applied at UEFA's level rather than French league level.

The Bundesliga and Ligue 1 had a huge hand in creating FFP. They already had a version of it built into the structure of their 2 leagues, and they were starting to feel disadvantaged with La Liga, the Premier league and Serie A clubs being able to snap up the worlds best players while not having any of the funds available. They only needed Platini to agree and he did.

The Premier league at the time had a combined club debt of 3.3bn. Which had seen Leeds and Portsmouth going into administration with West Ham and Everton teetering on the verge of it. Then you had the leveraged buyouts of LFC & MUFC which saddled debt onto the two biggest clubs in England. This was massive news at the time, and the Premier League had no plans or strategy to combat this. They were terrified of losing money from TV rights deals, or a European super league, so they were lobbying the sports minister for help. Then enter Karl-Heinz Rummenigge and Michel Platini from stage left, with the FFPR handbook, and the PL grabbed it with both hands, because they didn't have a leg to stand on at the time.

 

[halfcenturyup]

I can't say that's my impression. And I also thought the architects were utd and bayern and applied at UEFA's level rather than French league level.

That's how I remember it. Iirc, it was first dreamed up by Platini with the noble aim of increasing sustainability by regulating debt. But he got beaten down by the big clubs, including but not limited to Bayern and United, to restricting investment and stopping another Chelsea. Which morphed into stopping City, and then much later Newcastle, when it was introduced in England.

 

[Kippax77]

The Bundesliga and Ligue 1 had a huge hand in creating FFP. They already had a version of it built into the structure of their 2 leagues, and they were starting to feel disadvantaged with La Liga, the Premier league and Serie A clubs being able to snap up the worlds best players while not having any of the funds available. They only needed Platini to agree and he did.

The Premier league at the time had a combined club debt of 3.3bn. Which had seen Leeds and Portsmouth going into administration with West Ham and Everton teetering on the verge of it. Then you had the leveraged buyouts of LFC & MUFC which saddled debt onto the two biggest clubs in England. This was massive news at the time, and the Premier League had no plans or strategy to combat this. They were terrified of losing money from TV rights deals, or a European super league, so they were lobbying the sports minister for help. Then enter Karl-Heinz Rummenigge and Michel Platini from stage left, with the FFPR handbook, and the PL grabbed it with both hands, because they didn't have a leg to stand on at the time.

A very insightful post

 

[Agueroooooooooooo]

I’m not a lawyer but even I know civil fraud is a thing.

The burden of proof is determined by the venue, hence why we have civil rape trials, where the burden of proof is still balance of probabilities despite the fact it’s about whether a crime took place.

Fair point. So I guess the question is who would be the litigators/prosecutors.

Other clubs=civil=balance of probabilities
CPS=criminal=beyond reasonable doubt
???

 

[CC1]

The key point is that there is no limitation carve out in the PL rules which, in the absence of that, is English law

@slbsn - is that good?

 

[halfcenturyup]

Fair point. So I guess the question is who would be the litigators/prosecutors.

Other clubs=civil=balance of probabilities
CPS=criminal=beyond reasonable doubt
???

In this case, it's quite obviously breach of contract, a civil matter, so I don't even know what the debate is about.

 

[halfcenturyup]

@slbsn - is that good?

It means anything older than six years from February 2023 is time limited unless fraud or concealment are involved. So it's good.

 

[danielwood5]

That's how I remember it. Iirc, it was first dreamed up by Platini with the noble aim of increasing sustainability by regulating debt. But he got beaten down by the big clubs, including but not limited to Bayern and United, to restricting investment and stopping another Chelsea. Which morphed into stopping City, and then much later Newcastle, when it was introduced in England.

AC Milan were also heavily involved in changing the rules from focusing on debt to what we've got now. Platini mentioned it on the interview with Martin Samuels, Platini said Berlusconi came to him and said something along the lines of he'd already put enough money in to AC Milan to make them succesful and that he didn't want to put any more in but if more people invested in other clubs the way he had with AC Milan this would create more competition for them and he'd have to continue to invest.

 

[bladdered]

Because it’s shaped, driven and legitimised by the media. Across the entire spectrum - from the Guardian’s “row of grinning beards” to the Telegraph’s toxic hatred of Arabs in general and Abu Dhabi in particular. The BBC join in or at best turn a blind eye and Sky (Comcast) is in the pocket of the Cartel US clubs.
I hold the media much more responsible for racism etc than general football fans.

And celebrities are not exempt. How did he get away with this?

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

It means anything older than six years from February 2023 is time limited unless fraud or concealment are involved. So it's good.

Assuming that limitation comes into play, and that the IC adopt the same approach as CAS, then anything prior to the 2016/17 financial year will be time-barred.

That rules out the Mancini contract and probably Fordham as well, leaving just one or two years of the sponsorships and the non-cooperarion stuff.

 

[ancoats]

Really??

The Glazers couldn't find their own backsides in an arse kicking competition. They haven't won a title for 12 years, due to their shambolic mismanagement, lack of experience, lack of judgement, weak ownership, non existent leadership and a complete lack of direction.

They rarely ever visited the UK, and appointed company stooges from the Banking industry to run the club. This is an asset stripping exercise, pure and simple.

And you think that these are the same guys that are pulling all the strings???

This is quite frankly laughable and preposterous.

So why do they still generate more money from the Premier League than us, Their games are shown live every week and still the most talked about club on Skysports, The Glazers will not give a fuck about winning the title when they are still earning more than the rest from the league,

It's all about past glories and so-called history that is what they are trying to protect, They don't want Manchester City to end up with a better history and records than them in the next 20 years. Manchester City are building a legacy that going to be 2nd to none

 

[Stoned Rose]

Well, this narrative that a 'red cartel'/'PL cabal' assembled in an under ground bunker, and created FFPR to stop Arab owners, could not be further from the truth. The Glazers, Gillet & Hicks, Kroenke & Lerner did not want anyone snooping around in their financials, especially after saddling those clubs with huge debts from LBO's and asset stripping for their own financial gain. And Arsenal had just spent 1 billion on a new stadium. Abramovic was definitely not in favour of financial regulation, either.

FFPR came from France and Germany. It was not created here. The only reason why it was adopted so wholeheartedly by the PL, was to stop their prized assets from being bought out by American businessmen and hedge funds trying to make a quick buck. They feared that if enough American owners could get a strangle hold over the league, then the possibility of a European Super league would be unstoppable. And it almost did happen. FFPR was the only thing that they could use to put them off. They also tried to get a law passed that LBO's had to be approved by the minister for sport.

Mods this **** needs burying immediately.

 

[CC1]

It means anything older than six years from February 2023 is time limited unless fraud or concealment are involved. So it's good.

Great!! Thanks for clarifying. It gets more complex each 100 pages :-)

 

[Bluewonder]

I don't know if this means anything at all in relation to our case, it might be irrelevant, but just felt it's worth adding as he chaired our hearing which is currently awaiting a verdict.

Edit - it was a five year tenure which is ending in the new year. So nothing out of the ordinary. Still worthy of adding to discussion, perhaps.

You'd imagine his tenure will be extended unless our case is entirely concluded?

 

[Kippax Street 1880]

Whilst you are no doubt correct in identifying the rags, I'm not convinced that they are actually the worst culprits behind the attacks on the club.

I suspect the dippers, gooners and the perennial failures spurs are all more active in their attacks on us.

The rags get money hand over fist courtesy of the millions of braindeads who throw money at them simply because they see them as the club to follow.

The dippers are the same but we already know that from their past antics they seek to be as successful in terms of winning things , hacking and I suspect many more underhand machinations .

The gooners need to try and match our success on the pitch so are desperate to nullify us if possible.

But the most desperate and therefore driven in the cabal are surely fucking spurs with Daniel Levy and their crooked owner Joe Lewis or whoever supposedly owns them.

These are the real driver who will be pushing lackies like Masters imo, because of the need for a higher profile of success and therefore income.

Have hated them since their fucking mid-week wembley win, and nothing they have done or achieved ( or more like not-achieved ) has changed my opinions of the club or their fans. Entitled and deluded beyond belief.

Of course I could be wrong.............

I agree with this. It's in uniteds interest for City to be a strong team, they are our local rivals. We shine a spotlight on eachother. Gill definitely hated us though and threw some spanners in the works for us from his UEFA job.

 

[Maly]

That's how I remember it. Iirc, it was first dreamed up by Platini with the noble aim of increasing sustainability by regulating debt. But he got beaten down by the big clubs, including but not limited to Bayern and United, to restricting investment and stopping another Chelsea. Which morphed into stopping City, and then much later Newcastle, when it was introduced in England.

As far as I’m aware, it’s the G14’s way of trying to protect their assets through legislation, in an attempt to cement said 14 clubs at the top of the pyramid forever

Fuck knows what this Citi Leaks guy is on about?

Sounds like something Chat gpt might say