PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

halfcenturyup said:
Iirc, the PL in our case has gone straight to a panel, so it is up to Rosen, or the chair if the panel if appointed, to send the complaint to the club. The complaint should list the rules breached, the facts behind them and copies of any documentation supporting those facts. I imagine that has happened. Then the club has 14 days to deny the charges with an answer that must include reasons and copies of relevant documentation. This 14 days can be extended by agreement, and I would imagine it has been.

After that there is a directions hearing to set the thing up, during which both sides can give more information and lists of witnesses and such like are agreed .

Then the chair of the panel sets a time, date and place for the hearing. If you believe the press (and why shouldn't we, they always seem well informed), we are at that stage now.

May all be bollocks :)
Click to expand...
1460 days to investigate and charge us 115 times, 14 days to collect documents to defend yourself, seems legit.
 
projectriver said:
Documents are not submitted to CAS/the IC. Documents go to and from the claimant (UEFA and the PL) and the respondent (City) - in this mainly to the claimant from the respondent. The parties then use those documents to make their case to the tribunal (CAS or the IC in the PL case). The tribunal panel is extremely unlikely to look at any document not specifically pointed out to it either in submission or during the trial (say in cross examination). UEFA had more docs by the time CAS came along but the core of the case was on the small number of emails that were leaked. The PL will have many more documents I suspect.
Click to expand...

Just curious after hearing you on Talksport, and the sense that such a lengthy delay helps neither City nor the Premier League.
City will never win a Media War, but what would have happened if we had deliberately leaked any "irrefutable proof of innocence" on the day of the charges being announced?
Similarly, I seem to recall you suggesting that the PL had made things far more difficult than they should have been.
Would they have been better to stick to one specific charge and then, if proven, argue that this offence cascaded to the following season and beyond?
 
jimmygrimblesboots said:
My comment was to compare real world business with the fantasy world of football , no doubt we have signed up to rules and regulations , surprised clubs like Barca and Real and oursleves have not tested FFP in court , it would be interesting to see that outcome.
The Premier league have bitten off more than they can chew , if they are accusing us of fraud they are going have to gather some compelling evidence not just from our accounts but also our multi-national corporate businesses who are our partners , i dont think any of our sponsors would be willing to open their books to the Premier league and very much doubt they could leagally demand to do this unless again they have compelling evidence. Personally i think this is a fishing expediton by Masters and his cronies , throw 155 charges at us and see how many stick.
Click to expand...
I go back to my comments they are not about what we have done or what they can prove we have done but about what they are alleging which as I say would be wrong in the real world as well as the fantasy football world you refer to they are accusing us of fraud etc
 
inbetween said:
Exactly, if the process isn't independent then it doesn't have any standing because how can it be deemed fair? The Premier League is a football organisation, it isn't an independent auditor or anything else.

A really interesting point is the Premier League is owned 21 ways where each year every league club is given a share and the FA holds the final share (or maybe it's just the 20 clubs, not sure). There is therefore a massive conflict of interest in that actually city have a stake in the very organisation that we're being investigated by, we can even vote against punishing ourselves.

The Premier League gets around this conflict by having a three person independent panel conduct breach investigations but who is this panel appointed by and what expertise do they hold? Nobody knows. They also can only consider any evidence put in front of them which might not be so damning but again nobody actually knows.

At the moment we have to accept this process for what it is however the big challenge will come afterwards if the end result is bad. Everything then comes down to litigation and legal process which I can see being dragged out for 10+ years. The other clubs will have to pay millions in costs to defend against that.

With this in mind and given the unlimited resources that city have, personally if I was the Premier League and city offered to settle the matter quietly and privately then I'd settle!
Click to expand...
The red 'istree clubs have always had the other 18 clubs in their back pocket and Masters' is their puppet master , but the recent vote that allowed loan players to be signed by sister clubs proves the tide is turning the likes of Everton and others have jumped ship and have stood up against the three red c*nts of football clubs.
If all clubs were asked should the Premier league punish ourselves , Everton and Chelsea i dont think they would get enough votes , clubs are revolting against the Rags,Dippers and Goons , why the f*ck should three clubs have such power.
An indpendent regulator is the only way forward.
 
M18CTID said:
The way I see it is this - City didn’t trust handing over sensitive information to UEFA as the club felt that it could fall into the hands of our competitors, but we trusted handing it over to CAS.
Click to expand...
Agree , Gill and Parry held prominent postitions and we all know their allegiances , even Platini recommended there was an investigation at UEFA for all the leaks , but it never happened.
 
petrusha said:
Jesus Christ! Not this again.

Though the CAS saved us, UEFA found us guilty of lying, in our audited accounts and various financial submissions to them, about the source of GBP 50 million annually such that we presented it as income that could legitimately be expended under the FFP rules on transfers and player wages among other things when those funds in fact constituted owner investment that couldn't be spent on those items under the rules.

That UEFA made such a determination is there in black and white in the CAS award. MCFC certainly considered that the allegations were tantamount to accusations of fraud on the part of the club: see point 13(a) of City's case reproduced in para 61 of the Award and point 48 of City's case reproduced in para 61 of the Award.

As for UEFA's view on the matter, on page 11, under the heading "Disciplinary measures", it's stated that MCFC's conduct constituted "a series of very serious breaches, over [a four-year period] which were committed intentionally and concealed". Moreover, when the club offered its defence to UEFA, it did so "putting forward a case that ADUG knew to be misleading". So they outright accused the club of systematic, dishonest conduct, and of lying about that conduct in an attempt "to circumvent the objectives of [UEFA's FFP] Regulations".

Thankfully the CAS stated many times (twelve, if I remember correctly) in its award there was "no evidence" of our having done what UEFA alleged we had. However, make no mistake, the allegation was that we lied and falsified our accounts to facilitate extra spending of GBP 50 per season.

The PL charges, as far as anyone can judge from information in the public domain, repeat the accusation. In particular, the PL's statement of charges featured the following allegation (reproduced from here, with the emphasis mine) that City have breached:



The references in that accusation to the duty to act "in ... good faith" and to produce financial information giving a "true and fair view" in addition to the specific mention of "sponsorship revenue" suggests that the PL's charge is exactly the same as UEFA's in this regard. Those formulations really don't lend themselves to any other credible interpretation.

Below, I reproduce section 17 of the Theft Act 1968, which deals with the fraud-based offence of false accounting:



We may have been vindicated by the CAS, but UEFA found MCFC as a club guilty of conduct that inevitably entailed the commission by individual officers and employees of the club of the offence under section 17 of the 1968 Act (see the summary of UEFA's case above) because they:
  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.
The wording of the PL's charges against MCFC clearly signpost that, again, we're in this territory. They're not likely to make insinuations with regard to bad-faith conduct and accounts not giving a true and fair view if all that's under discussion amounts to a legitimate difference of opinion as to how certain items should be accounted for under the relevant rules. The current media hysteria about the "charges" against us isn't due to them relating solely to accounting issues!

I ultimately think it was outrageous for UEFA to put forward the case against us it did based on the evidence it had. Our club was dragged through the mud as a result, but more importantly it was a serious attempt to inflict serious, lasting damage on our club. Now the PL seems to be repeating the exercise, and, if it's putting forward a similar case, it needs calling out on that.

As it stands, the PL seems to be happy to throw around accusations of incendiary seriousness. And if the PL wants to act in such a way, we should be highlighting that rather than diminishing it. LET THE PL FUCKING OWN ITS CONDUCT.
Click to expand...

My man!

Hope you and family are doing okay, bud?
 
petrusha said:
Jesus Christ! Not this again.

Though the CAS saved us, UEFA found us guilty of lying, in our audited accounts and various financial submissions to them, about the source of GBP 50 million annually such that we presented it as income that could legitimately be expended under the FFP rules on transfers and player wages among other things when those funds in fact constituted owner investment that couldn't be spent on those items under the rules.

That UEFA made such a determination is there in black and white in the CAS award. MCFC certainly considered that the allegations were tantamount to accusations of fraud on the part of the club: see point 13(a) of City's case reproduced in para 61 of the Award and point 48 of City's case reproduced in para 61 of the Award.

As for UEFA's view on the matter, on page 11, under the heading "Disciplinary measures", it's stated that MCFC's conduct constituted "a series of very serious breaches, over [a four-year period] which were committed intentionally and concealed". Moreover, when the club offered its defence to UEFA, it did so "putting forward a case that ADUG knew to be misleading". So they outright accused the club of systematic, dishonest conduct, and of lying about that conduct in an attempt "to circumvent the objectives of [UEFA's FFP] Regulations".

Thankfully the CAS stated many times (twelve, if I remember correctly) in its award there was "no evidence" of our having done what UEFA alleged we had. However, make no mistake, the allegation was that we lied and falsified our accounts to facilitate extra spending of GBP 50 per season.

The PL charges, as far as anyone can judge from information in the public domain, repeat the accusation. In particular, the PL's statement of charges featured the following allegation (reproduced from here, with the emphasis mine) that City have breached:



The references in that accusation to the duty to act "in ... good faith" and to produce financial information giving a "true and fair view" in addition to the specific mention of "sponsorship revenue" suggests that the PL's charge is exactly the same as UEFA's in this regard. Those formulations really don't lend themselves to any other credible interpretation.

Below, I reproduce section 17 of the Theft Act 1968, which deals with the fraud-based offence of false accounting:



We may have been vindicated by the CAS, but UEFA found MCFC as a club guilty of conduct that inevitably entailed the commission by individual officers and employees of the club of the offence under section 17 of the 1968 Act (see the summary of UEFA's case above) because they:
  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.
The wording of the PL's charges against MCFC clearly signpost that, again, we're in this territory. They're not likely to make insinuations with regard to bad-faith conduct and accounts not giving a true and fair view if all that's under discussion amounts to a legitimate difference of opinion as to how certain items should be accounted for under the relevant rules. The current media hysteria about the "charges" against us isn't due to them relating solely to accounting issues!

I ultimately think it was outrageous for UEFA to put forward the case against us it did based on the evidence it had. Our club was dragged through the mud as a result, but more importantly it was a serious attempt to inflict serious, lasting damage on our club. Now the PL seems to be repeating the exercise, and, if it's putting forward a similar case, it needs calling out on that.

As it stands, the PL seems to be happy to throw around accusations of incendiary seriousness. And if the PL wants to act in such a way, we should be highlighting that rather than diminishing it. LET THE PL FUCKING OWN ITS CONDUCT.
Click to expand...
Hallelujah.
Someone analytical that's not a white flag waving, shitting whippet.
 
projectriver said:
No
Click to expand...
However, in a completely unrelated move, the UAE withdraws all investment in the UK economy because, after all, we either want investment or we don’t ;-)

Seriously though I doubt SM will sit by and let somebody find him and his organisation guilty of cheating after all the investment and local jobs created. There would be a price to pay down the line.
 
Last edited:
One city fan's club shirt is hilarious: Player's name front: CHARGES. Squad number back: 115.
The league are trying to lay down a precedent with Everton before us: Everton admitted guilt and fully cooperated. Let's just not and fight on - we've seen off EUFA and we can deal similarly with these fuckers.
 
fanatic1 said:
One city fan's club shirt is hilarious: Player's name front: CHARGES. Squad number back: 115.
The league are trying to lay down a precedent with Everton before us: Everton admitted guilt and fully cooperated. Let's just not and fight on - we've seen off EUFA and we can deal similarly with these fuckers.
Click to expand...
We beat UEFA too
 
Why are the PL doing this?
Most on here think the PL is trying to get us, damage our rep, and give comfort to the Redshirts.
There is another explanation. (Bear with me, I have had a few gins)
The redshirts have never ceased their campaign with round robins, disgraceful statements (“It is a bad day for football”), and above all mythering the PL to do something about City.
The PL spent 6 years polling thru our dirty laundry trying to find infringements of the rules. Off they went to their KCs: “ Here we go”. But the advice they got was: “Drop it, you got Jack shit.”
Hmmm. What to do? Meanwhile the redshirts are going on at them non stop: “Get them, punish them, kill the blue cheats.”
Ok, the PL say to them:
”If we charge them with everything you think they’ve done, you must accept the verdict win or lose and get off our backs.”
” Right” say the redshirts, “But you must charge them with every single thing.”
So the PL charge us line by line, year by year, with breaching every rule in the book and hope some mud sticks.
Note to PL: do you really think the redshirts will keep their word?
Redshirts in their righteousness sit back and await the guilty verdict.
Message to redshirts: You are in for a big letdown.
 
KS55 said:
Why are the PL doing this?
Most on here think the PL is trying to get us, damage our rep, and give comfort to the Redshirts.
There is another explanation. (Bear with me, I have had a few gins)
The redshirts have never ceased their campaign with round robins, disgraceful statements (“It is a bad day for football”), and above all mythering the PL to do something about City.
The PL spent 6 years polling thru our dirty laundry trying to find infringements of the rules. Off they went to their KCs: “ Here we go”. But the advice they got was: “Drop it, you got Jack shit.”
Hmmm. What to do? Meanwhile the redshirts are going on at them non stop: “Get them, punish them, kill the blue cheats.”
Ok, the PL say to them:
”If we charge them with everything you think they’ve done, you must accept the verdict win or lose and get off our backs.”
” Right” say the redshirts, “But you must charge them with every single thing.”
So the PL charge us line by line, year by year, with breaching every rule in the book and hope some mud sticks.
Note to PL: do you really think the redshirts will keep their word?
Redshirts in their righteousness sit back and await the guilty verdict.
Message to redshirts: You are in for a big letdown.
Click to expand...
Message to KS55, stay off the gin.
 
the difference between how Everton who with out a doubt cheated and us are talked about is staggering. When Everton scored the second goal against Newcastle it was such a tail (fairytale) how the are saving them selfe from the harsh penalty but every City titles are tainted, even it is not proven we are guilty.
 
Scaring Europe to Death said:
Just curious after hearing you on Talksport, and the sense that such a lengthy delay helps neither City nor the Premier League.
City will never win a Media War, but what would have happened if we had deliberately leaked any "irrefutable proof of innocence" on the day of the charges being announced?
Similarly, I seem to recall you suggesting that the PL had made things far more difficult than they should have been.
Would they have been better to stick to one specific charge and then, if proven, argue that this offence cascaded to the following season and beyond?
Click to expand...
There is no such thing as irrefutable evidence in that sense - it is evidence to defend the case as presented in due course and in the sense of a tribunal weighing evidence. If you want the starting point, read the accounts. City say those are the truth and therefore irrefutable proof of innocence if and until they are proven to be false. Remember the burden of proof is the PLs. On the second point, yes the PL has overreached in my opinion and made the case extremely complex.
 
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