I get that we carnt keep going round in circles about appeals and perhaps best to stay away from worst case scenarios but if you don’t mind answering Why would HMRC SFO likely fail ? Don’t have to answer.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules
- Thread starter ayrshire_blue
- Start date
Many timesHave you ever posted on any other thread? Genuine apologies if you’ve already explained your pattern of posting on here previously.
remember arthur mann
Well-Known Member
Times have changed.& if my auntie had bollocks, she’s be my uncle. If, buts & maybe’s
Centurions
Well-Known Member
So the guy says he'll answer no more questions on the subject and the very first thing you do is ask a question about it?I get that we carnt keep going round in circles about appeals and perhaps best to stay away from worst case scenarios but if you don’t mind answering Why would HMRC SFO likely fail ? Don’t have to answer.
East Level 2
Well-Known Member
I think the current phrase is "if my auntie had bollocks they'd be my uncle", though I've not really got the hang of this new pronoun routine.& if my auntie had bollocks, she’s be my uncle. If, buts & maybes
Centurions
Well-Known Member
We need a 'Frequent Q&A' sticky at the top of this thread, visible on every page. Anyone who asks a question answered in it should get an immediate 7 day thread ban just to give the rest of us a break.Time barring does exist in English law, though, and membership of the PL is essentially a contract between MCFC and the PL, which is governed by English law.
The way PL might avoid the time-barred issue for the pre2017 charges is by alleging that there has been deliberate concealment by MCFC. That is in essence an allegation of fraud. Which is precisely what they are alleging. Now we wait to see what evidence they have to justify such a serious charge.
This has been done to death in the thread already.
We aren't going round in circles on appeals - the answer is above.I get that we carnt keep going round in circles about appeals and perhaps best to stay away from worst case scenarios but if you don’t mind answering Why would HMRC SFO likely fail ? Don’t have to answer.
The second part of the question is highly complex and inappropriate for speculation here (at least it is for me). I will say (as I already have a few times) that HMRC is a red herring - there is nothing material here for HMRC that couldn't be addressed in correspondence.
Some of the most informed posters on here have discussed HMRC and fraud. To me the Mancini payments surely would require HMRC investigation and the other stuff fraud. But I am no expert.We aren't going round in circles on appeals - the answer is above.
The second part of the question is highly complex and inappropriate for speculation here (at least it is for me). I will say (as I already have a few times) that HMRC is a red herring - there is nothing material here for HMRC that couldn't be addressed in correspondence.
I don’t see why you’re avoiding speculation unless it’s job related but you have an anonymous name and I wouldn’t be posting full stop if that was the case.
On appeals I get what your saying but Bare in mind we where cleared at CAS on most counts
If we believe the clubs It seems like pressure from rivals was enough to open an investigation and flimsy evidence can lead to to charges and charges could turn into a negative outcome.
Yet large and irrefutable evidence could clear us of a criminal convictions.
That makes no sense to me and I don’t know how that’s consistent with the law yet from what you’re saying we won’t have a chance of appeal. I would also add from what others are saying I think the Premier League are not treating Etihad in a way that is consistent with accounting standards
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
You actually think Simon Jordan is, or presents as ‘posh’?Manufactured posh bloke, likes others to think he's intelligent, but actually has a very poor history in football finance. I genuinely don't know why anyone listens to him let alone pays any attention to him.
Seriously?
People can discuss what they like - you don't need to understand why I won't speculate about SFO (which I have lots of direct experience of). As for the rest, I don't really follow your post and think the points have been clearly dealt with and are pretty settled.Some of the most informed posters on here have discussed HMRC and fraud. To me the Mancini payments surely would require HMRC investigation and the other stuff fraud. But I am no expert.
I don’t see why you’re avoiding speculation unless it’s job related but you have an anonymous name and I wouldn’t be posting full stop if that was the case.
On appeals I get what your saying but Bare in mind we where cleared at CAS on most counts
If we believe the clubs It seems like pressure from rivals was enough to open an investigation and flimsy evidence can lead to to charges and charges could turn into a negative outcome.
Yet large and irrefutable evidence could clear us of a criminal convictions.
That makes no sense to me and I don’t know how that’s consistent with the law yet from what you’re saying we won’t have a chance of appeal. I would also add from what others are saying I think the Premier League are not treating Etihad in a way that is consistent with accounting standards