City & FFP | 2020/21 Accounts released | Revenues of £569.8m, £2.4m profit (p 2395)

[Newman Noggs]

@Newman Noggs hope you don't mind me asking a few questions as projectriver doesn't seem to be about as our current legal advisor.
1. Is it likely the documentation they seek has already been the subject of scrutiny by CAS?
2. If not do they expect us to provide information indicating guilt of something we were proven not guilty of at CAS?
3. Is it matters in relation to accounts in excess of 6 years ago? If so is there a statute of limitation for these proposed allegations of rule infringement within the PL FFP rules? Is it not inferred by the Statute of Limitations?
4. As this is currently not a legal case alleging a breach of law, are we awaiting some lightning bolt of allegations of fraud against our auditors as surely that is the direction they are going with this?

As you rightly say, Projectriver is the authority on this.

My interpretation of the judge's comments, which may be wrong, is based on many years experience of fraud investigation and, in particular, requiring production of documents under statutory powers. I have experience of subjects of enquiry using every method at their disposal, including Court hearings, to avoid producing documents for both honest and dishonest reasons. In our case, given that the enquiry is no more than a witch-hunt I'd have been disappointed if the club hadn't objected in every way possible.

The fact is, the PL have learned from UEFA and are watertight as far as leaks are concerned so nobody knows sufficient to answer your questions. All we do know is what was in the published judgements which Projectriver dealt with as fully as possible at the time.

An independent enquiry is (supposed to be) just that. The point is that (in theory) no "guilt: is assumed so no evidence of wrongdoing is required to launch an enquiry, suspicion is sufficient to ask for more information so that a conclusion can be reached. As far as I can see, it is established that under PL rules, they are entitled to ask for documents which they have done. We've said no and objected to the panel appointed to arbitrate.

On the face of it, based on what we can tell from the Judgement, it looks as though any delay is down to us for not co-operating. You can't then turn round and blame the investigating party for not concluding a case when documents it has requested haven't been produced much as we would like to.

Whether the enquiry is "impartial" and has been conducted fairly will, doubtless, be the subject of Court proceedings if (when) the PL decides it has enough evidence to take action against us.

You quoted the judge and then you interpreted the judge's words. The interpretation that you put on the judge's words is one which originated in those media outlets which had rushed to declare that City were guilty as charged by UEFA and that we had "got off" on "a technicality" by delaying the enquiry. They rushed to point out that City had frustrated the PL by the same delaying tactics and one of the most prominent was the Mail I do find it strange that so many City supporters still accept the nonsense purveyed by the Mail as at all authoritative .

There are some other puzzling aspects to your post. You assert that "we can't argue that ... because we delayed the enquiry going to court". Enquiries do NOT go to court. Charges are heard by a court and the PL had demanded to see evidence without specifying what they might be evidence of. The judge's comments betray an irritable impatience with the PL which has taken - in football terms - an inordinate time on an enquiry which has led to neither an acquittal nor a charge. It has still to arrive at any outcome. But it isn't City who are carrying out the enquiry and there is no reason why on earth the judge should, therefore, tell the club to bring the PL's enquiry to a speedy conclusion.

So, the Daily Mail had nothing whatsoever to do with my post and you clearly have not read, or not understood, the Court case.

 

[StillBluessinceHydeRoad]

As you rightly say, Projectriver is the authority on this.

My interpretation of the judge's comments, which may be wrong, is based on many years experience of fraud investigation and, in particular, requiring production of documents under statutory powers. I have experience of subjects of enquiry using every method at their disposal, including Court hearings, to avoid producing documents for both honest and dishonest reasons. In our case, given that the enquiry is no more than a witch-hunt I'd have been disappointed if the club hadn't objected in every way possible.

The fact is, the PL have learned from UEFA and are watertight as far as leaks are concerned so nobody knows sufficient to answer your questions. All we do know is what was in the published judgements which Projectriver dealt with as fully as possible at the time.

An independent enquiry is (supposed to be) just that. The point is that (in theory) no "guilt: is assumed so no evidence of wrongdoing is required to launch an enquiry, suspicion is sufficient to ask for more information so that a conclusion can be reached. As far as I can see, it is established that under PL rules, they are entitled to ask for documents which they have done. We've said no and objected to the panel appointed to arbitrate.

On the face of it, based on what we can tell from the Judgement, it looks as though any delay is down to us for not co-operating. You can't then turn round and blame the investigating party for not concluding a case when documents it has requested haven't been produced much as we would like to.

Whether the enquiry is "impartial" and has been conducted fairly will, doubtless, be the subject of Court proceedings if (when) the PL decides it has enough evidence to take action against us.


So, the Daily Mail had nothing whatsoever to do with my post and you clearly have not read, or not understood, the Court case.

A logical non sequitur.

 

[Newman Noggs]

There are some other puzzling aspects to your post. You assert that "we can't argue that ... because we delayed the enquiry going to court".

By the way, you were right on this point. I missed out a "by" between "enquiry" and "going to Court"

 

[Centurions]

In regards to the PL investigation the original thread (there may be more than one) is here:-

City v PL | Legal Dispute/Appeal

Sorry if this has been mentioned elsewhere - I never really start threads but couldn't immediately see it on the main forum page.

forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk

With a couple of speculative (contradictory) posts regarding what it's about :)

City v PL | Legal Dispute/Appeal

Bird & Bird are mentioned here as the prems lawyers and Clifford Chance has been mentioned here, https://www.ft.com/content/d4504e75-128b-4428-b5ae-7d7620a0188e as being part of our team so this seems to fit? @Prestwich_Blue you might know more?

forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk

City v PL | Legal Dispute/Appeal

Having tried to piece as much as I can together, this is what seems to be happening. The appeal is against the dismissal of an appeal made during arbitration proceedings between us and the PL. There were two aspects of the appeal: the question of whether the arbitration decision was wrong, and...

forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk

 

[MillionMilesAway]

That comment was directed at us, not the PL. He also made the very un-judge-like observation that we'd won the PL twice since the enquiry began which was unnecessarily pointed in my opinion.

I read it as not being aimed at us alone, but at both parties.

To my mind whether the 2 titles thing is read as "City have already benefited" or "it's two years, for heaven's sake get on with it as it's getting too late to do anything meaningful if there is a breach" is a matter of opinion. I read it as the latter.

 

[KS55]

That comment was directed at us, not the PL. He also made the very un-judge-like observation that we'd won the PL twice since the enquiry began which was unnecessarily pointed in my opinion.

He/she might be a blue.

 

[waspish]

I read it as not being aimed at us alone, but at both parties.

To my mind whether the 2 titles thing is read as "City have already benefited" or "it's two years, for heaven's sake get on with it as it's getting too late to do anything meaningful if there is a breach" is a matter of opinion. I read it as the latter.

Well the judge wouldn’t of Agreed to us having to hand over the documents to those shisters if he didn’t mean what he said! A judge has to be impartial he was far from it we don’t won’t his personally opinion on us already winning two titles!

 

[davek1808]

Didn’t the Premier league say too much time had elapsed to charge the dippers for hacking our database? So how far back are they going with this lol.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Didn’t the Premier league say too much time had elapsed to charge the dippers for hacking our database? So how far back are they going with this lol.

I think they're reopening the case from 1906 to see if there's anything there they can pin on us.

 

[davek1808]

I think they're reopening the case from 1906 to see if there's anything there they can pin on us.

Wouldn't surprise me, absolutely desperate to appease the red tops.