PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

3 years this was City responce, we talke very little here about what City said when the charges tropped.
But they havent said anything else for 3 years
 

Attachments

  • 1000003648.jpg
    1000003648.jpg
    476.9 KB · Views: 4
this has been largely horseshit. 3 years on and 10s of millions of legal fees so far if not more.
and nobody knows if we are weeks or months or years from a decision as the mighty pompous panel cannot be hurried. do fucking overtime and work 8 days a week on it. people will go to Mars and back and create a population there by the time these finish over a few charges.
 
slbsn said:
I was asked to respond to the latest discussion against my self imposed ban on this limitation question. I do so because I have moved from my original position and the position that most lawyers on here seem to agree with. I was wrong, I think, to consider it so simply and think the focus on the overarching English law qualification of the Premier League rules may not offer the whole answer.

On reflection, I think the key here is that this is a disciplinary case under Section W. So whilst it is all governed by English law, disciplinary processes are seen differently from dispute resolution (Section X). That is usually because discipline, as in any industry, is seen as an important public confidence issue and professional wrong doing should not be allowed simply because of the passage of time.

However, this is complicated in the City case because the underlying allegations are, we think, related to matters that would ordinarily be fraud, accounting issues, financial non-compliance etc that is not merely sporting discipline. Those matters are usually non-arbitrable. These matters may fall outside the Premier League's contractual disciplinary jurisdiction entirely. You cannot prosecute fraud through a sports tribunal and avoid limitation by calling it "discipline." If the charges require proving effective criminal dishonesty, they are fraud allegations regardless of the label, and limitation should apply, six years from when the Premier League discovered (or should have discovered) the fraud.

City may have argued that the Premier League lacked jurisdiction to determine fraud allegations at all and that such matters should be in the courts where limitation, proper evidence rules, and processes apply. Whether anyone ran this argument, we do not know - City may have accepted jurisdiction. It seems that if City did accept jurisdiction, limitation is not in play. Very old allegations or weak cases could be dismissed for abuse of process but this requires the accused to show real prejudice, all unlikely here.

As I have previously said, I always felt it probably irrelevant either way, be it due to:
1) the fact that time barring could only ever, even in court, apply once all the evidence had already been heard anyway (at which point you have either brought the judge/panel with you or they are going the other way) or
2) because if the panel found against City on most of the key charges, they would have to have been deliberately concealed.

So, either way limitation would not be a bar.

Assuming City did not challenge the PLs Section W jurisdiction at this stage (perhaps leaving it for an appeal, though much harder if they never ran the argument at all), then the disciplinary proceedings probably continued treating these as regulatory breaches under Section W where no limitation periods apply. The panel will determine whether City breached the rules and ignore limitation as that question does not arise in their Section W framework.

If City lose and want to argue on appeal that the charges were actually fraud allegations outside the PL's jurisdiction, they face the problem that by participating without protest they may have accepted jurisdiction. An appeal will be reluctant to let parties submit to a process, lose, then challenge jurisdiction afterwards. The time to fight jurisdiction is at the start, not after an adverse decision. If City reserved their position explicitly throughout, an appeal might succeed on jurisdictional grounds, but if they treated it as straightforward regulatory discipline, that ship has likely sailed.
Click to expand...

Good man.
 
slbsn said:
As I have previously said, I always felt it probably irrelevant either way, be it due to:
1) the fact that time barring could only ever, even in court, apply once all the evidence had already been heard anyway (at which point you have either brought the judge/panel with you or they are going the other way) or
Click to expand...
Is that because there would have to be a finding of fact as to whether a fraud had taken place, based on the evidence?
 
Innocent but the club may negotiate a settlement of sorts to drop some charges in exchange for admitting minor breaches…

The league will only succeed on technicalities, improper (foreign) accounting practices without proving intent to deceive.

Probably did this also: Premier League has no time limit, City will challenge the validity of older evidence or argue procedural flaws.

Precedent set from the 2020 UEFA case(cas).

City will argue that older breaches (e.g., pre-2017) are time-barred under the 6-year rule.The Premier League (or rival clubs) could counter with Section 32 if concealment/fraud is proven.

Ultimately the allegations are unfounded, with insufficient evidence from the Premier League. The charges rely on leaked emails that have been taken out of context or inadmissible.

Balance of probabilities? More likely than not to have breached not beyond a reasonable doubt like criminal cases.

regulatory breaches zzzzzzzzz.

Fine for being late, grass too long, pep winning, rags losing. Call it £10?

Ain’t getting any of our titles you red wankers.

Some light reading -:)
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Is that because there would have to be a finding of fact as to whether a fraud had taken place, based on the evidence?
Click to expand...

Which is why I had always thought that Mancini (which is the example we were talking about last night) would be time limited, because it seems to me to be very difficult to prove fraud when the numbers are immaterial from an accounting viewpoint and it must be very difficult to show there was, at the time the "scheme" was introduced, any benefit to be gained from a legal viewpoint - FFP didn't even exist at that point. And if you conclude there wasn't any fraud, there is no reason to deliberately conceal it.

But, as the two of you point out, that doesn't mean the allegation won't be looked at (as was the case for the time-barred matters at CAS) - they have to be assessed first to determine if they are time limited or not.

I think.

I appreciate @slbsn 's clarifications, by the way. When he talks law, we should all listen. I have updated the "limitation" filing cabinet in my brain for his latest musings.

My brain is very limited on all this, anyway :)
 
halfcenturyup said:
But, as the two of you point out, that doesn't mean the allegation won't be looked at (as was the case for the time-barred matters at CAS) - they have to be assessed first to determine if they are time limited or not.
Click to expand...
I guess it operates like a Newton Hearing in a criminal court. A trial within a trial.
 
Been thinking about this, I think one of the reasons for the time is it suits the pl to drag their feet.
It allows the American cartel to go after other non cartel clubs. Why ? Because the outcry is 'what about City'. It deflects hate away from the cartel towards City.

What rival fans should be looking at is why another non American owned club has had points deducted. Why were utd allowed 40 odd millions over spend due to covid when others were only allowed 1 million.

The press/media cover for the cartel by pushing the 'what about City' line.

It suits the pl to drag their feet, it hides what they are really doing.
 
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