PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Centurions]

I am not sure but feel that there may be an element of double jeopardy to this. I do not think the PL can add any punishment to something we have already been punished for by CAS for failing to cooperate. I am Certain that Lord Pannick will run that argument. We did not cooperate, we admitted it and we received a €10m fine for it.
Although the PL will be able to show we did not cooperate with UEFA I am not Sure they can add any further punishment.

My post was ever so slightly, tongue in cheek bud.

 

[Shads]

I wouldn’t suggest that City would have to send every document held but they will have had little choice and I would say playing with fire if they failed to supply everything the PL requested and the arbitration panel ruled on

Manchester City Football Club Ltd v The Football Association Premier League Ltd [2021] EWHC 628 (Comm) (17 March 2021)

The text is a bit long winded but it is pretty clear when it comes to PL rules on such matters and how they are subscribed to by the clubs

Correct. However it is as I described in a different post not indefensible. You cannot be forced to provide documents that do not exist, are not properly identified or totally irrelevant.

 

[halfcenturyup]

It’s normal on these types of proceedings to deal with such discreet points of law first. If the issue is time barred then as per CAS there is little point in spending the time on the substantive part of the issue. There will likely be a preliminary part to the hearing on those issues.

Makes sense to me. Just trying to work out, if we could show good reason why the emails don't show dishonest concealment (for example: out of context, no evidence provided of follow-through act, witness statements) the allegation could be time-barred and we wouldn't have to show all the transactional details.......

 

[Brendan110_0]

What if city say we don’t have that info this company has it, are they able to ask for it from that other company?

Nope.

 

[slbsn]

You say leaks is that the now proven stolen emails ?
Excuse my thickness and thanks for your posts

Football leaks. But yes stolen emails. It makes little difference now unfortunately - the mails are out and the PL now know what to request

 

[terraloon]

OK thanks. Didn't follow all that in all honesty. I didn't think the PL would charge us all over again for the stuff that was cleared at CAS. More fool me :)

My limited experience of the tax authorities is some 30 years out of date but particularly with Holding Companies they put their people on site checking Inter company transactions. A bit like the football authorities did with City.
Perhaps no manpower for that now.

The whole thurst in the old Inland Revenue days used to be that accounts etc would be sent in and examined nowadays in HMRC days it’s all about file accounts etc in good faith and they may be challenged but the onus very much is on the entity to be responsible and only if the accounts etc get challenged down the line will discrepancies etc be investigated

 

[M18CTID]

Man City 'launched secret project to shift player image rights cash'

Manchester City are alleged to have launched a secret project to shift the cost of player image rights to a third-party in a bid to escape Financial Fair Play penalties.

www.dailymail.co.uk

of course it was here's an article asking UEFA to investigate it way before we were charged by them. It was covered and deemed nothing

One thing that stood out from that Daily Fail article:

"There is no indication that 'Project Longbow' is illegal."

 

[Shads]

My post was ever so slightly, tongue in cheek bud.

I got that, but it is also a valid question which I thought was worth answering. Probably one others are asking as well.

 

[Shads]

Makes sense to me. Just trying to work out, if we could show good reason why the emails don't show dishonest concealment (for example: out of context, no evidence provided of follow-through act, witness statements) the allegation could be time-barred and we wouldn't have to show all the transactional details.......

The parties will in conjunction with the panel likely agree a timetable and order of what is dealt with and the order in which it will be dealt with.

 

[terraloon]

Correct. However it is as I described in a different post not indefensible. You cannot be forced to provide documents that do not exist, are not properly identified or totally irrelevant.

It goes back to which documents were in effect ruled on.I would the whole set of emails un redacted would be a given
My point was and still is if the PL had a whole list of documents they wanted and the process via arbitration rubber stamped that request then if they exist city would be play with fire if they don’t offer them up even if they don’t think they are relevant