PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[pauls]

1. Not for a few years I suspect.
2. As the hearing hasn't been held, I can't tell you how it went. The 2nd hearing would be the High Court. Probably in another 2 years

I had heard if City were unhappy with the panel/verdict that they could appeal, this would mean a new panel and hearing? Do you mean if this goes against us we can then go to the High Court if blatantly flawed?

 

[kaz7]

I had heard if City were unhappy with the panel/verdict that they could appeal, this would mean a new panel and hearing? Do you mean if this goes against us we can then go to the High Court if blatantly flawed?

There is no appeal process as such and we can only take procedural matters to a high court

 

[terraloon]

You’re telling me HMRC won’t be interested in a large some of money paid to a high profile manager of a premier league club in a different country under a different tax regime instead of the one this one. If it was true income tax and national insurance would have been avoided

No I don’t think they would have any jurisdiction over.
From what I understand the sums paid to Mancini from Man City were as per the contract.
Unless ( which I don’t think there is ) evidence that City paid either by cash or from their bank accounts any money that wasn’t in line with the contract then cant see how it is a matter that HMRC would remotely be involved in.
But that’s not the point of the charges. What the PL appear to be saying is that the money paid and from what I have read properly accounted for by another company was really in respect of his work at Man City.

 

[Bloominmarvellous]

Not sure its the 'paying agents through satellite clubs' thing but wasn't it stated in utd's last accounts that they have an ongoing HMRC investigation?

Yes last I heard utd and Newcastle were still being investigated by hmrc.

 

[domalino]

Disguising owner investment would likely be illegal.

No it wouldn't.

The taxman doesn't give a fuck if Sheikh Mansour is paying person X to sponsor us, he just cares that tax is being paid on it.

 

[Bloominmarvellous]

Everyone knows you are completely trustworthy, I mean you joined only after the latest PL charges, all your posts are about the charges, and of course you are not implying City & it’s satellite clubs, just out of interest which other club with satellite clubs were you implying?

You are bang on I did only join after the charges and have only posted about the charges as it is this element I have interest in.

I don't expect you to think I am trustworthy in anyway and don't care if you do or dont but what I will say is everything I have mentioned in any post is easily evidenced through legal journals, bulletins or transcripts available online.

As for which satellite clubs I was implying, any of them. It's one of them but no one knows who. I appreciate you thinking I meant city as it is on here but it was just a response to a post about hmrc involvement.

If this forum has a block feature you could always add me but I am enjoying the info from people with legal understanding on here.

 

[Berts Neck]

Most people don't lie. That is a fact. Research supports me on that. We all speculate about peoples motives without having any idea about the people we are talking about. The individual's in the tribunal will have to operate with integrity because of the rules that govern what they are doing. The stakes are high for all parties. I am not of the view that the tribunal will be made up of red cartel stooges.

My previous point was that if the tribunal members disregard clear irrefutable evidence presented by City's reps because they want to have a guilty verdict irrespective of the evidence, I would not want to be one of those tribunal members. They have to do their jobs properly.

I read this forum as this case means a lot to all Blues..opinions, some good legal minds, various different thoughts.Cool with that. In 3-4 years we will get a verdict.

Every once in a while you come across a post and think WTF.. I am sorry but your post above has to rank in the top ten must stupid posts ever. "Most people do not lie..That is a fact. There is research." Well show us the research !! Am intrigued how they do that. Just imagining a random sample of people being quizzed.. "Well Mr. Smith..Have you lied ever in your life. No sir, never." Hmmm.

Sorry Bez that is just ridiculous. Everyone lies.

 

[ayrshire_blue]

I read this forum as this case means a lot to all Blues..opinions, some good legal minds, various different thoughts.Cool with that. In 3-4 years we will get a verdict.

Every once in a while you come across a post and think WTF.. I am sorry but your post above has to rank in the top ten must stupid posts ever. "Most people do not lie..That is a fact. There is research." Well show us the research !! Am intrigued how they do that. Just imagining a random sample of people being quizzed.. "Well Mr. Smith..Have you lied ever in your life. No sir, never." Hmmm.

Sorry Bez that is just ridiculous. Everyone lies.

True.

 

[KS55]

No it wouldn't.

The taxman doesn't give a fuck if Sheikh Mansour is paying person X to sponsor us, he just cares that tax is being paid on it.

Sorry, I assumed your words were literal. If Mansour gave Etihad money and they passed it on to us as sponsorship, that might break ffp as defined by PL or UEFA, but it is not legally owner investment. If Mansour invested in City, but our accounts disguised that, that would be illegal.
Ah, words, words crafty little blighters.

 

[terraloon]

If you're saying that the allegations specifically over inflating sponsorship which are specifically referenced in the PL charge sheet differ substantially from those put forward by UEFA as justification for banning MCFC and fining the club £30 million, then that would impact on a analysis of the position. If you're not saying this, on the other hand, then I invite you to read the CAS Award in City's case against UEFA because the Award is arguably the best source out there in terms of explaining the charges in question.

After all, we're accused by the PL of breaching the duty contained in its rules to provide financial information that gives a true and fair reflection of the club's financial position "with respect to its revenue (including sponsorship revenue), its related parties and its operating costs". This is exactly the issue that dominated the CAS proceedings, and unless we're presented with evidence to the contrary, it seems to me perfectly reasonable to assume that the nature of the accusations from the PL is materially the same as that of the charges UEFA found proven against us.

In particular, then, I invite you to consider the text between pages 8 and 12 of the CAS Award, the Panel summarises the nature of the UEFA decision we were appealing in the proceedings at hand. In doing so, the panel quotes directly from the Decision of UEFA's Adjudicatory Chamber, so we have the findings straight from the horse's mouth as follows:



So there you have it in black and white. UEFA said that City deliberately and intentionally concealed the source of sponsorship income to circumvent the FFP regulations. In doing so, the club produced accounts that "were not complete and correct".

The offence of false accounting under section 17 of the Theft Act 1968 is a fraud-based offence. By virtue of section 17(1)(b), a person "shall, on conviction on indictment, be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years" if that person "dishonestly, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another" when he "in furnishing information for any purpose produces or makes use of any account, or any such record or document as aforesaid, which to his knowledge is or may be misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular".

That, in effect, is exactly what UEFA accused us of doing. The CAS rejected it, but the allegation was that the employees and officers of MCFC with whom they were dealing in the context of our FFP issues had committed conduct that happens to fall squarely within the above definition for the following reason.

If the CAS had found MCFC guilty, the relevant officers of MCFC;

1. would have had to have acted dishonestly (they're sophisticated businesspeople who fully understood UEFA's rules and, according to UEFA, knew what they were doing);
2. would certainly have been acting with a view to gain ... for another (the other being the club, and such gain taking the form of allowing the club to spend £200 million that otherwise wouldn't have counted as income for FFP purposes, as referred to in para 206 of the CAS Award); and
3. would have supplied various sets of accounts and other documents that were "misleading, false or deceptive" because they'd have provided documents including but not limited to our annual accounts that duped UEFA into thinking we had an extra £50 million available to us annually while still meeting the requirements of FFP.

How else are UEFA's accusations to be interpreted if not as allegations of conduct that, if committed, constitutes a serious criminal offence. There are all sorts of reasons why a prosecution might not have ensued even with a guilty verdict from the CAS, but make no mistake, what UEFA claimed we'd done constituted conduct that was, in effect, fraudulent.

This gets incredibly confusing but under FFP article 47 ( which CAS refer to ) clubs don’t actually submit accounts. They submit a whole host of financial information which is independently audited.

CAS refer to note 4 that has to be the note attached to the Financial Statement which isn’t the note mentioned in statutory accounts. We know that because if you look at note 4 of Cities accounts that note is all about directors remuneration nothing to do with income .
Not every country that is affiliated to UEFA will submit accounts in the same format or indeed has to supply the same information so its not really surprising that Company Accounts aren’t the source of FFP financial information


Article 47 – Annual financial statements
1 Annual financial statements in respect of the statutory closing date prior to the deadline for submission of the application to the licensor and prior to the deadline for submission of the list of licensing decisions to UEFA must be prepared and submitted.
2 Annual financial statements must be audited by an independent auditor as defined in Annex V.
3 The annual financial statements must consist of:
a) abalancesheet;
b) aprofitandlossaccount;
c) a cash flow statement;
d) notes, comprising a summary of significant accounting policies and other explanatory notes; and
e) afinancialreviewbymanagement.

Your interpretation of false accounting is interesting and bears merit. If you are right then City simply can’t loose the case because without doubt if false accounting accusations follow then you can see your owners and or directors being banned from owning the club and or being directors even under the current poor rules