PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

TheGhost said:
The Premier League Annual Report was published this week. What reference was made to legal costs and the City case?
Click to expand...
None that I can see, but the document on the PL website isn't a financial annual report, more a glossy coffee table review, although the PSR proceedings involving Everton, Forest and Leicester get a brief mention.
There's no set of accounts filed at Companies House for 23/24 as yet, the due date is 30 April 2025.
 
petrusha said:
Magic Hat is a bad-faith actor who demonstrably lacks skills in terms of processing and evaluating legal evidence and is seeking to portray the emails as conclusive proof. If they really were some kind of 'smoking gun', as he/she maintains, you wouldn't have had stellar rosters of lawyers, including some of the country's top silks, participating in a hearing such as this before three extraordinarily eminent figures for three months at a cost of tens of millions.

I haven't actually looked at the emails for a long time, but I've read all of them (pre- and post-CAS) that have ever been released. Clearly, they didn't make City look good and one thing I was actually struck by was that some of the asides looked highly unprofessional, not least the crack about "one down and six to go" or whatever it was. And I also reckoned that the one posted on here the other day in which Simon Cliff spoke about "taking down" the global PwC organisation in response to advice the firm gave UEFA sounded a bit crass, IMO.

But do they actually show MCFC to be guilty of serious wrongdoing covered by accusations made by the PL? Remember these things about emails. First, what are claimed to be apparent references to unlawful acts may be, in fact, discussions of how to perfectly legally circumvent laws or regulations to achieve a business objective in the manner in which legitimate businesses across the globe seek to do each day. Second, in any event, the fact a course of action was referred to in an email isn't conclusive evidence that it happened.

In the CAS hearing, to refute the contents of the emails adduced during those proceedings, part of the evidence City put forward consisted of the club's own accounting records and that of sponsors, as well as direct witness testimony. It would be extremely difficult for the PL to persuade the Panel that it needs to dismiss as evidence the accounting records of City and its sponsors, rejecting the views of their auditors at the same time, together with the personal testimony of distinguished, successful and experienced businessmen. They'd all have to be in on it.

Remember what City said before the CAS: “These very serious allegations necessarily involve a conspiracy on the part of MCFC, its shareholder, and these two sponsors [Etihad and Etisalat]. Large numbers of executives not just within MCFC but also those sponsors and the respective auditors would have to be complicit in order to facilitate such a scheme. Whatever Magic Hat says, that's all highly dubious unless the subsequent Award tells us otherwise.

'
Click to expand...
Thanks Petrush - always nice to have a balanced perspective. I'll go back to my day job and be busy rather than worrying about this damn thing.

Magic Hat is some sort of bad faith actor who is obviously making some money via his blue tick. Some say it's Harris, I don't believe that. I think he may have some contacts at Arsenal who maybe feeding him the shit he needs to post
 
Gone for a Burton said:
City are 100% guilty.

I've seen most of the evidence, it's not confidential.

To most interested observers, legal or otherwise, they will concede to the evidence in plain sight.

City have or will admit their guilt.
Click to expand...
Is this "Evidence" in the public domain as discussed ad-infinitum in this thraad?

Or do you have a super secret mole?
 
petrusha said:
Magic Hat is a bad-faith actor who demonstrably lacks skills in terms of processing and evaluating legal evidence and is seeking to portray the emails as conclusive proof. If they really were some kind of 'smoking gun', as he/she maintains, you wouldn't have had stellar rosters of lawyers, including some of the country's top silks, participating in a hearing such as this before three extraordinarily eminent figures for three months at a cost of tens of millions.

I haven't actually looked at the emails for a long time, but I've read all of them (pre- and post-CAS) that have ever been released. Clearly, they didn't make City look good and one thing I was actually struck by was that some of the asides looked highly unprofessional, not least the crack about "one down and six to go" or whatever it was. And I also reckoned that the one posted on here the other day in which Simon Cliff spoke about "taking down" the global PwC organisation in response to advice the firm gave UEFA sounded a bit crass, IMO.

But do they actually show MCFC to be guilty of serious wrongdoing covered by accusations made by the PL? Remember these things about emails. First, what are claimed to be apparent references to unlawful acts may be, in fact, discussions of how to perfectly legally circumvent laws or regulations to achieve a business objective in the manner in which legitimate businesses across the globe seek to do each day. Second, in any event, the fact a course of action was referred to in an email isn't conclusive evidence that it happened.

In the CAS hearing, to refute the contents of the emails adduced during those proceedings, part of the evidence City put forward consisted of the club's own accounting records and that of sponsors, as well as direct witness testimony. It would be extremely difficult for the PL to persuade the Panel that it needs to dismiss as evidence the accounting records of City and its sponsors, rejecting the views of their auditors at the same time, together with the personal testimony of distinguished, successful and experienced businessmen. They'd all have to be in on it.

Remember what City said before the CAS: “These very serious allegations necessarily involve a conspiracy on the part of MCFC, its shareholder, and these two sponsors [Etihad and Etisalat]. Large numbers of executives not just within MCFC but also those sponsors and the respective auditors would have to be complicit in order to facilitate such a scheme. Whatever Magic Hat says, that's all highly dubious unless the subsequent Award tells us otherwise.

'
Click to expand...

Same it’s been awhile since I’ve read them, I remember at the time one was a hugely different scale, but it had potential parallel to my situation at the time.

I sponsored my Son’s football team for kit, equipment etc. and it cost what it cost within reason. Later in the season they came back for more money for more stuff.

Now you could argue in my case APT etc but is there a reason Etihad deal could not involve more money if needed, be it front loaded or just vision that spending more could be worth more.

I think there might be stuff they don’t like come out on this, but ultimately I don’t think they would be able to square that hole. I think sponsors paid for it themselves and maybe it worked for them more than just football.

But it is what it is.

Amazes me everyday how we’re the bad guys and PSG are just accepted.
 
petrusha said:
And presumably for the reasons I've set out in the post I've just made. Sounding confident isn't a bad thing in the slightest, so sorry if I gave that impression.

It's not for me, though. I won't lie - part of the reason is that, when you're a lawyer and it doesn't go the way your best assessment suggested it might, people can get arsey with you. I'm leaving plenty I can point back to, mainly as a precaution. :)
Click to expand...

Whether it be you, PB, Stefan you are all pulling bits of information together and making very sound, reasonable predictions and observations based on that.

Without seeing the case and the evidence, your at best shooting somewhat in the dark.

It is entirely possible to see all that and get it wrong, so without it anyone blaming you is just angry as opposed to being rational.

Out of interest as a lawyer if a case is 70/30 does it win 70% or more often and likewise if a case is 50/50 does it win half the time or more likely to lose.

I appreciate the obvious answer isn’t always the right one.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Well, one would be a surprise, two would be almost unbelievable and there is the possibility of appeal, so there would have to be four Ulrich Haases out of the six sitting. It isn't going to happen .....
Click to expand...
Still, if a law professor widely considered one of the most experienced and respected arbitrators at the CAS had his way UEFA would have won. There's always a risk.
 
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