City launch legal action against the Premier League | Club & PL reach settlement | Proceedings dropped (p1147)

Prestwich_Blue said:
As I've said before, the legal fraternity on here have become seemingly fixated on the idea that the PL allegations imply there's been significant financial fraud. I can understand why you take that view but I don't agree with it.

My view is that the theme running from the 2014 settlement, where there was a dispute about related parties, through to the CAS hearing, where the panel didn't test that question but did put in their report that we may be guilty of misreporting if the Abu Dhabi-based sponsorships were related parties.

This carried on, with the issue of supposed misreporting of alleged related parties being behind the introduction of the APT, so contracts like Etihad and FAB could be examined.

So I'm convinced that the first group of the PL charges which total over 50 of the 130, is less about financial misfeasance but much more about the related party issue. If that succeeds then I doubt it would have no real impact on our finances and is unlikely to subject us to sporting penalties such as points deductions but:
  • The "cheats" label will stick.
  • We'll be forced to publish the value of the contracts.
I think our adversaries will be pleased enough with that outcome.
Click to expand...

I remember when the allegations first came out, I couldn't believe the PL were trying to prosecute again the fraud arguments raised by UEFA. I was mercilessly shot down by the lawyers on here who convinced me it was almost impossible that the combination of alleged rule breaches meant anything other than exactly that.

As an accountant, agreeing with our lawyer friends made me feel dirty but I came to the conclusion they must be right and that, in fact, it wasn't a bad thing as it raises the cogency of the evidence required well above the level that would be required for any other breaches.

So now I fully expect the judgment to start with an explanation of why both parties consider these charges to be so so serious, effectively amounting to fraud, and the effect that has on the standard of evidence required.

I may be wrong, of course, but what else has happened since to support that view?

- The 12 week hearing, that implies some very serious and weighty considerations well above and beyond any isoteric accounting considerations.

- The reported opening of damage claims from rival clubs. They know what is going on because they instigated the whole thing and they wouldn't be allowed to lodge a claim if it wasn't warranted by the allegations.

- The rabid sensationalism in the press. If that wasn't warranted by the nature of the allegations the PL, imho, would have had to calm the waters, if only to manage expectations.

I agree, of course, that RPT is part of the allegations and it's very important the club fights it as hard as it will fight the funding allegations, otherwise we will never hear the end of the state-owned bullshit. But imho, from what has happened hitherto (!) there is much more to it than that.
 
slbsn said:
Whats the question?
Click to expand...
When you say "we barely discussed 115" do you recall the last section of the interview where you told us City have absolutely nowhere to go if these incredibly serious charges haven't been shown to be clearly false at the Tribunal without adding your customary rejoinder that it is extremely unlikely for them to be provable? I found that omission rather odd (and depressing). Cheer me up.
 
wolviedinho said:
The 115 was hardly mentioned and if “fraud” is established then the punishment will be severe.

Think we all know that. If we want someone to push back then the club need to send one of their top men/women to do the media rounds.

I don’t think the club care.
Click to expand...
115 is really just about accusations of wholesale fraud and the final part of the discussion proceeded on the premise of a 30 point deduction next season and City's powerless position in terms of appeal if it came about.
 
johnny crossan said:
When you say "we barely discussed 115" do you recall the last section of the interview where you told us City have absolutely nowhere to go if these incredibly serious charges haven't been shown to be clearly false at the Tribunal without adding your customary rejoinder that it is extremely unlikely for them to be provable? I found that omission rather odd (and depressing). Cheer me up.
Click to expand...
Yes - did forget about that part. We weren't discussing the substance or my view of whether there will be an adverse finding. It was more a process discussion in my mind. Wouldn't read anything into it. Not sure how much more confidence you need to see from the club
 
slbsn said:
Yes - did forget about that part. We weren't discussing the substance or my view of whether there will be an adverse finding. It was more a process discussion in my mind. Wouldn't read anything into it. Not sure how much more confidence you need to see from the club
Click to expand...
thank you, you've lifted my spirits as I set out to climb the wooden hill.
 
johnny crossan said:
115 is really just about accusations of wholesale fraud and the final part of the discussion proceeded on the premise of a 30 point deduction next season and City's powerless position in terms of appeal if it came about.
Click to expand...
As I said, the club can send someone to talksport to defend its position and argue the points raised. Stefan is not the person to do this.

Unless the legal posters are wrong it doesn’t seem like we have a route to the high court unless on procedural grounds but that point has been contested to death on here.

The 30 points was pulled out of thin air and it’s more a soundbite than anything to worry about.

The league can’t get near the cogent level of evidence needed to prove fraud.

I don’t know why people are worried about this still. It ain’t going to happen.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
I've held back from saying this on more than one occasion but I'm going to say it now.

Despite, or maybe because of, your important and substantial contributions to this thread, you really can be quite patronising at times. I'm also really tired of you twisting the narrative on pretty well everything I say that doesn't agree with your view, a view which often confuses fact and opinion. I am fed up of you trying to make me look like some part of uneducated simpleton and looking down your nose at me. Rant over.

Let me put it as simply as I can. The APT1 verdict clearly showed that the reason for the introduction of those rules was that certain clubs felt we had played fast and loose with our Abu Dhabi sponsorships and IAS 24. It actually says that quite explicitly.

CAS also mentioned the issue of potential misreporting of related party transactions. In my opinion this indicates that this is a clear angle of attack. I agree that if that was the only issue then that wouldn't have taken as long as it has, and it's highly unlikely any charges would have been bought on the first place. But we do know the charges cover the Fordham payments and Mancini's side contract and maybe other things in the first group of charges that we're not aware of.

BUT IT SPECIFICALLY MENTIONS RELATED PARTIES IN THOSE CHARGES. So there's a good chance that this is a significant part of the charges. Not the only one, but definitely a key part. You clearly either fail to understand this or are just being contrary for the sake of it. That latter possibility was why I made my jibe about you spending too much time on Talksport, because that's their modus operandus.
Click to expand...

I can sense the words "fuck off" forming somewhere in the ether :)

I think part of the problem is that @slbsn is so involved with the subject matter on a day to day basis, and is presumably very good at it, and so sometimes forgets that the rest of us need more explanations to understand the legalities to his level.

Also, I don't blame him for being a little tetchy recently in view of the bizarre comments which have been aimed in his direction.

I don't have a problem with that, tbh. I will just keep asking questions until I get as close as I can. It doesn't bother me if I get a snide reply every now and then, but I can imagine it bothers others.

Maybe what we need on here is someone who can explain @slbsn 's legal views down to the level of a regular poster on here. That's a different skill set, I think, maybe someone who is a qualified lawyer, who deals with students on a daily basis and has a way with words. @petrusha , do you know anyone like that? :)
 
Isn't there a massive contradiction here, re the Etihad renewal. The PL classed the sponsorship as an APT, so how does that square with any potential 115 accusations of RPT. This is what I can not fathom, if 115 is seeking to illegitimise the Etihad sponsorship why did the PL not reject the renewal out of hand and say they will not even think about approval because of their concerns. Am I missing something here (again).
 
LeonardoDaVnci said:
Isn't there a massive contradiction here, re the Etihad renewal. The PL classed the sponsorship as an APT, so how does that square with any potential 115 accusations of RPT. This is what I can not fathom, if 115 is seeking to illegitimise the Etihad sponsorship why did the PL not reject the renewal out of hand and say they will not even think about approval because of their concerns. Am I missing something here (again).
Click to expand...
You aren’t missing anything. It’s a good question. And why not charge this RPT issue simply and discretely for more recent years. Nice tight case.
 
halfcenturyup said:
I can sense the words "fuck off" forming somewhere in the ether :)

I think part of the problem is that @slbsn is so involved with the subject matter on a day to day basis, and is presumably very good at it, and so sometimes forgets that the rest of us need more explanations to understand the legalities to his level.

Also, I don't blame him for being a little tetchy recently in view of the bizarre comments which have been aimed in his direction.

I don't have a problem with that, tbh. I will just keep asking questions until I get as close as I can. It doesn't bother me if I get a snide reply every now and then, but I can imagine it bothers others.

Maybe what we need on here is someone who can explain @slbsn 's legal views down to the level of a regular poster on here. That's a different skill set, I think, maybe someone who is a qualified lawyer, who deals with students on a daily basis and has a way with words. @petrusha , do you know anyone like that? :)
Click to expand...
It’s not a communication issue. Colin simply believes the case is much less serious for the reasons he’s set out. He’s entitled to that view. I disagree and have pointed out numerous times the indicators to support my view. But honestly I can’t be arsed going over it again and again.

But I think it is a good idea that his view is added to the Q&A which I think, he thought, was me taking the piss.

And btw if people still can’t see that even the lawyers involved in these cases aren’t sure of the right answer I can’t help you. Most of the time people go into hearings thinking they have the better of the arguments but one side loses. There are no certainties and not everything has an answer even less so when we are piecing it together without the key docs.
 
LeonardoDaVnci said:
Isn't there a massive contradiction here, re the Etihad renewal. The PL classed the sponsorship as an APT, so how does that square with any potential 115 accusations of RPT. This is what I can not fathom, if 115 is seeking to illegitimise the Etihad sponsorship why did the PL not reject the renewal out of hand and say they will not even think about approval because of their concerns. Am I missing something here (again).
Click to expand...

The point about RPTs is that, before APTs, this was the only recognised way of identifying transactions that were "related" (obviously) to a company. It wasn't a question of legitimate / illegitimate, but there were some accounting considerations if a transaction was defined as RPT (disclosure of terms and amount in the accounts) and some PSR considerations (RPTs could be re-assessed to fmv).

The problem for the PL with Etihad is that City's auditors, quite rightly imho, didn't classify Etihad as an RPT so they couldn't re-assess the deal at fmv.

That's why they introduced the concept of APTs, very deliberately wording the rules to catch Etihad and any similar deal Newcastle may enter into. The APT rules effectively stopped someone like Etihad "taking a punt" on sponsoring someone like City because they buy into a long term vision. Remember Henry's "what was the losing bid" jibe in 2009? Basically solving that little problem for the PL, so you can imagine who was driving it.

Back to RPTs, the point of the PL questioning the RPT nature of Etihad since 2009 is so they can look again at fair value (not easy), and use it to further support the need for APT rules (much easier). The point of other clubs pushing the PL to look at the RPT nature of Etihad is to push the state-owned narrative which can be used in other areas such as with the IR (to discuss banning state-owners of clubs) and continue the sports washing narrative. No RPTs, no narrative.

All imho.
 
This thread is making people go:


Stress, the cartel, wanker masters and the media cunts are to blame:



The real City experience is back baby -:)
 
halfcenturyup said:
I can sense the words "fuck off" forming somewhere in the ether :)

I think part of the problem is that @slbsn is so involved with the subject matter on a day to day basis, and is presumably very good at it, and so sometimes forgets that the rest of us need more explanations to understand the legalities to his level.

Also, I don't blame him for being a little tetchy recently in view of the bizarre comments which have been aimed in his direction.

I don't have a problem with that, tbh. I will just keep asking questions until I get as close as I can. It doesn't bother me if I get a snide reply every now and then, but I can imagine it bothers others.

Maybe what we need on here is someone who can explain @slbsn 's legal views down to the level of a regular poster on here. That's a different skill set, I think, maybe someone who is a qualified lawyer, who deals with students on a daily basis and has a way with words. @petrusha , do you know anyone like that? :)
Click to expand...
No more fucking lawyers !!!!!
 
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