PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[We've got Guardiola]

ADUG buying City has generated far more scrutiny of Abu Dhabi’s politics and human rights record than existed among the average member of the British public beforehand.

In terms of perception it’s undoubtedly caused more harm than good for them.

But usually this is when these idiots start talking about it not just being about public perception, it’s about normalisation and ‘soft power’, business relationships and prestige and all sorts of other bollocks they fail to explain with any burden of proof how any of that is a) true or b) actually benefits the state.

It has always amongst these journalists been about hatred and envy. Fuck knows what has happened to McKenna for him to realise that him and his cronies have been pushing western imperialism all these years.

All the journalists, pundits and everybody else are total hypocrites and morons when it comes to this stuff. You only have to look at the world cup in Qatar when they quickly shut their mouths and lapped up the hospitality and money. They're the kind of people who criticise Trump but you can bet that plane and 5 star hotel is booked for in a week or two.

You only have to look at the CL final on Saturday. You have the Qatari CEO of PSG stood there on the trophy platform, a club that is basically no different to us and yet he also sits on UEFA's executive committee. Given his position none of the UEFA people stood beside him clearly give a shit about human rights abuses by Qatar. Maybe the ton of sponsorship influx from Qatar has something to do with it....

You then have idiots at places like Arsenal talking about Arab oil money whilst their stadium is literally named after Emirates Airlines and their shirt has Emirates Airlines written on it. There's then Liverpool or United, both clubs that are registered in foreign tax havens where transparency is non-existent.

City are a disruptor to a business model and that's what this is about. People often talk of the 115 charges as criminal when they're not at all, city are not charged with a single crime. What we're charged with is the equivalent of Etihad Airways refusing to give another private company full details of their accounts and every single transaction upon demand. Why would they? Of course Etihad will tell them to piss off.

According to the Premier League (and it's still unproven) defending that 'breach' is apparently worth spending millions of £ which could otherwise be spent on fans! That tells you all you need to know, they don't care about the fans, they care about the money.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

What is your view on whether the Limitation Act applies to the PL rulebook?

This isn't a trick question, there seems to be some differing opinions on here these days. Just trying to straighten it out in my mind ....

I would say so. Ultimately it’s surely down to whether these proceedings are viewed as an ‘action’, pursuant to section 5 of the Act:

An action founded on simple contract shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued.

Section 38(1) states “action” includes any proceeding in a court of law, including an ecclesiastical court, ‘includes’ being the operative word as this does not preclude other legal forums such as sporting tribunals.

Struggling to see how it wouldn’t apply. The overarching ambit of the principle of limitation is wholly uncontroversial. It provides an arc of certainty within the realm of (Inter alia) contract law, which is unquestionably in the wider public interest. Without it the civil legal system would be burdened by various preposterous claims with no prospect of success.

The only viable debate about limitation is in relation to the relative periods, but for historical and practical reasons six years for contacts (in the absence of fraud) is seen as apposite.

 

[Carrl]

You went to Iceland and ate pizza, garlic bread and chips? Good Lord .....

Expensive it is, though.

And that's compared to England. "bad food, worse weather, Mary fucking Poppins"

 

[halfcenturyup]

I would say so. Ultimately it’s surely down to whether these proceedings are viewed as an ‘action’, pursuant to section 5 of the Act:

An action founded on simple contract shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued.

Section 38(1) states “action” includes any proceeding in a court of law, including an ecclesiastical court, ‘includes’ being the operative word as this does not preclude other legal forums such as sporting tribunals.

Struggling to see how it wouldn’t apply. The overarching ambit of the principle of limitation is wholly uncontroversial. It provides an arc of certainty within the realm of (inter alia) contract law, which is unquestionably in the wider public interest. Without it the civil legal system would be burdened by various preposterous claims with no prospect of success.

The only viable debate about limitation is in relation to the relative periods, but for historical and practical reasons six years for contacts (in the absence of fraud) is seen as apposite.

Appreciate that. Thanks.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Appreciate that. Thanks.

Who has suggested it might nor apply? Haven’t kept massively up to speed with this thread for a bit.

 

[Lord Blue]

Not sure time barring could be characterised as a legal technicality, and certainly not a loophole as it has been described as by legal dilettantes in the press on a number of occasions.

Any limitation period is as much a part of UEFA’s rules as those we were accused of breaching. Certainly no legal professional of repute would ever refer to a limitation period as a technicality. They are a fundamental part of how civil legal disputes operate and to fail to spot them is a cardinal sin that could not be excused or explained to any disciplinary or complaints body, or to any indemnity insurer, as a technicality.

To describe it as such in those circumstances would invite nothing but ridicule.

i appreciate you're commenting on the guy i was replying too but i should add, i'm no expert either, but somethings get repeated so often they get accepted as truth and i may well have been a bit guilty of that in my reply to him. but rants care little about that !

 

[CC1]

Thanks to Stefan for his piece on "The Auditor in the Room" which is informative and very relevant to the possible outcome of our case - far more so than anything Delaney has to say or infact just about any other contribution to this thread recently.

In a good way???

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

i appreciate you're commenting on the guy i was replying too but i should add, i'm no expert either, but somethings get repeated so often they get accepted as truth and i may well have been a bit guilty of that in my reply to him. but rants care little about that !

Just making a wider point mate.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Who has suggested it might nor apply? Haven’t kept massively up to speed with this thread for a bit.

You haven't missed much, tbh, apart from this from @slbsn and a few of my words of wisdom :)

"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."

 

[TonyColemansbagofapples]

I wonder how many people know where that is from ?

Give me a minute

 

[Gremlin]

I would say so. Ultimately it’s surely down to whether these proceedings are viewed as an ‘action’, pursuant to section 5 of the Act:

An action founded on simple contract shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued.

Section 38(1) states “action” includes any proceeding in a court of law, including an ecclesiastical court, ‘includes’ being the operative word as this does not preclude other legal forums such as sporting tribunals.

Struggling to see how it wouldn’t apply. The overarching ambit of the principle of limitation is wholly uncontroversial. It provides an arc of certainty within the realm of (Inter alia) contract law, which is unquestionably in the wider public interest. Without it the civil legal system would be burdened by various preposterous claims with no prospect of success.

The only viable debate about limitation is in relation to the relative periods, but for historical and practical reasons six years for contacts (in the absence of fraud) is seen as apposite.

It is probably worth noting the caveat in your final sentence "in the absence of fraud". It could be argued that the PL is alleging exactly that (in the case of some of the accusations) and hence that would mean the the 6-year limitation wouldn't apply. However, as has been discussed at great length previously, fraud is a much higher bar to reach so far more difficult to prove and, in any event, it would then involve calling in the authorities of which there has been no sign whatsoever.

 

[supercity88]

All the journalists, pundits and everybody else are total hypocrites and morons when it comes to this stuff. You only have to look at the world cup in Qatar when they quickly shut their mouths and lapped up the hospitality and money. They're the kind of people who criticise Trump but you can bet that plane and 5 star hotel is booked for in a week or two.

You only have to look at the CL final on Saturday. You have the Qatari CEO of PSG stood there on the trophy platform, a club that is basically no different to us and yet he also sits on UEFA's executive committee. Given his position none of the UEFA people stood beside him clearly give a shit about human rights abuses by Qatar. Maybe the ton of sponsorship influx from Qatar has something to do with it....

You then have idiots at places like Arsenal talking about Arab oil money whilst their stadium is literally named after Emirates Airlines and their shirt has Emirates Airlines written on it. There's then Liverpool or United, both clubs that are registered in foreign tax havens where transparency is non-existent.

City are a disruptor to a business model and that's what this is about. People often talk of the 115 charges as criminal when they're not at all, city are not charged with a single crime. What we're charged with is the equivalent of Etihad Airways refusing to give another private company full details of their accounts and every single transaction upon demand. Why would they? Of course Etihad will tell them to piss off.

According to the Premier League (and it's still unproven) defending that 'breach' is apparently worth spending millions of £ which could otherwise be spent on fans! That tells you all you need to know, they don't care about the fans, they care about the money.

Spot on. Wenger was the cheerleader for all the negativity around City. He was a washed up dinosaur who couldn't see the hypocrisy of slagging off City for having new owners from the middle east when his own club had done a record deal with Emirates for their stadium and shirt sponsor. He was already struggling to succeed with Arsenal, had Mourinho slagging him off with all of Abramovich's billions and the rags still investing in their squad.

Arsenal's owners didn't want to put their hands in their pockets which set them back 20 years in the end.

No one gave shit about the World Cup being in Russia despite the dodgy shit going on there. They cared about Qatar until the money talked. They don't care about the US despite all of the issues in the US and their foreign policy.

It became a fantastic way of criticising City - the only way. But in time people will get bored. I'd argue they already are. We'll always be guilty, but if these charges ever get determined and if we are cleared as expected, they'll move on. Rival fans, youtubers and the like will still say we're guilty but even they'll get bored.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

It is probably worth noting the caveat in your final sentence "in the absence of fraud". It could be argued that the PL is alleging exactly that (in the case of some of the accusations) and hence that would mean the the 6-year limitation wouldn't apply. However, as has been discussed at great length previously, fraud is a much higher bar to reach so far more difficult to prove and, in any event, it would then involve calling in the authorities of which there has been no sign whatsoever.

The extension of the time limit in instances of fraud to the point of discovery is provided for under the Act in any event (section 32) and so the Limitation Act 1980 still applies in those circumstances.

 

[manimanc]

You haven't missed much, tbh, apart from this from @slbsn and a few of my words of wisdom :)

"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."

Me after reading the above..

 

[halfcenturyup]

View attachment 194142

Me after reading the above..

Tbf, I can see the logic.

It's just a walk-back from an "it definitely applies" position to "both sides have to justify their position" position, which is what law is all about, I suppose.

 

[oldius]

It's all boring, boring, boring, boring.
Yeah it's boring, boring, boring, boring.

It's rival fans that are horny, horny, horny because they think that Pep leaving is a chance for them to ascend, and a yearned for negative 115 result for us could be a catalyst for collapse. The headlines about our player contracts are part of the same mix.

I'm looking forward to it all falling apart for them...ALL OF IT!

 

[StillBluessinceHydeRoad]

In a good way???

Absolutely.

 

[cheekybids]

Spot on. Wenger was the cheerleader for all the negativity around City. He was a washed up dinosaur who couldn't see the hypocrisy of slagging off City for having new owners from the middle east when his own club had done a record deal with Emirates for their stadium and shirt sponsor. He was already struggling to succeed with Arsenal, had Mourinho slagging him off with all of Abramovich's billions and the rags still investing in their squad.

Arsenal's owners didn't want to put their hands in their pockets which set them back 20 years in the end.

No one gave shit about the World Cup being in Russia despite the dodgy shit going on there. They cared about Qatar until the money talked. They don't care about the US despite all of the issues in the US and their foreign policy.

It became a fantastic way of criticising City - the only way. But in time people will get bored. I'd argue they already are. We'll always be guilty, but if these charges ever get determined and if we are cleared as expected, they'll move on. Rival fans, youtubers and the like will still say we're guilty but even they'll get bored.

The problem with Wenger was he & the Arsenal board were so convinced that a bigger stadium in London was going to make them far wealthier than any club & the future was theirs. What they failed to understand was this was a slow costly plan & TV revenue would grow so much it would bring investors with billions from all over the world & make their plan a failure before it had finished. He was bitter rather than thinking we fucked up, we failed to consider these impacts they look to blame.

 

[wahablue]

Who were the clubs that signed on the Arsenal paper to moan to the PL and who did the same to EUFA,I wish to know who they were for when the panel gives us its result I have my facts right.I Thank you.

 

[117 M34]

We accept that the club breached the relevant regulations, and we recognise that the disciplinary bodies were entitled to conclude that proof of sporting advantage was not necessary in order to establish a serious offence

Took this from the Southampton statement released today related to their spying case.

Will we be arguing we didn't have a sporting advantage?