PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Keeper!]

That's why I'm pointing it out.......

You seemed to make the point the staff were leaving because of our impeding doom.

 

[petrusha]

Three things

1) I have no doubt that City will try and restrict the years to which charges can be applied but the PL will no doubt counter argue that all the information sent in by City was accepted in good faith it was the disclosure of the emails that was the time they became aware.
2) The reference I make to Swiss law is that CAS conduct their Arbitration using the relevant prices and procedures contained therein and of course UEFA is under Swiss jurisdiction. But the PL panel, the Inevitable appeal and arbitration won’t be conducted in the same manner as a civil court case
3) Under the UEFA appeal and the CAS hearing City were able to introduce matters that werent first admitted into evidence at the origin hearing. There are severe restrictions around that in the way in which PL appeals are conducted.

Point 1 basically repeats what I said, which was: "City will therefore argue that everything outside a six-year period is time-barred. The PL must be relying on concealment here and will no doubt maintain that the period should run from the time of the Der Spiegel leaks, when it first became aware of the matters at hand."

Point 2 in my opinion doesn't really have much relevance. However the proceedings are conducted, both sides will have the opportunity to present their evidence and the decisive factor will be how convincing the evidence is.

As for point 3, City have said in the club's statement that they expect to be able to put a "comprehensive body of ... evidence" to the independent Commission. They'll have made that statement based on professional advice and knowing how the PL conducts such proceedings. I'm inclined to take them at their word rather than speculate given that I don't have at my disposal the facts that would enable me to make an informed assessment as to whether they're right.

 

[Chris in London]

Isnt that the whole basis of the PL case ?

Their contention is that all contracts re players, re managers all financial information is submitted in good faith and save certain issues the football authorities in England don’t have a process, resources or requirement to conduct a deep dive into the numbers.

This has been done to death earlier in the thread. Maybe we need a FAQ thread on this. This would qualify for a VFAQ. (A sort of Europa league for FAQs. You'll know all about the Europa league, being a Chelsea fan and all.)

Their case is that we have knowingly failed to provide accounts that give a true and fair view of the financial circumstances of the club. So, taking the Etihad sponsorship as an example, their case is (a) HHSM/ADUG provided MCFC with funding that was in reality owner investment, but (b) this was dishonestly presented in the accounts as sponsorship from Etihad in order to circumvent FFP rules. The problem with the FA's case is that not only do our audited accounts show that this was actually genuine sponsorship income paid for services rendered, but so do Etihad's audited accounts. So they need to prove that this is not just a case of City getting one past our own auditors, this was basically a conspiracy at a very high level in Abu Dhabi that involved two major international companies presenting accounts that were known to be false. As has been made clear ad nauseam, this is an extremely serious allegation, that is tantamount to an actual allegation of fraud.

The consequence in limitation terms is this. I will break it down into paragraphs, that might help.

1. The arrangements between MCFC and the PL are essentially contractual, and subject to English law.

2. Unlike the UEFA rules, the PL rules do not include any limitation period. However, because the arrangements are subject to English law, the general limitation period of 6 years applies. See point 1.

3. The limitation period is however suspended in a case (I paraphrase in the interests of brevity) where fraud is alleged until the fraud comes to light. It is at that point that the 6 year period begins to run.

4. What this means is that if the PL can establish fraud, the 6 year period will not apply until the fraud came to light, which was the publication of the Der Spiegel articles in 2018.

5. To get over that hurdle, however, the PL needs to adduce very cogent evidence. And if they cannot, the ordinary 6 year rule will apply. See point 2.

6. For that reason, the charge of fraud is central to the case for two reasons: (a) because that is precisely what the PL is alleging, and (2) because if they cannot establish fraud, the complaints that pre-date 2017 (ie six years before the complaint was made) are time-barred.

 

[Keith Moon]

Then you'll understand why the PL will need to adduce particularly cogent evidence to clear the threshold imposed by the Act, and why, in the event of a failure to establish fraud etc the ordinary 6 year rule will apply.

If PL have the same evidance as UEFA they will not be abel to establish fraud , so thats 2/3 of the alleged breaches out of the window.

 

[Chris in London]

If PL have the same evidance as UEFA they will not be abel to establish fraud , so thats 2/3 of the alleged breaches out of the window.

yep - more like nineteen twentieths, though

 

[terraloon]

This has been done to death earlier in the thread. Maybe we need a FAQ thread on this. This would qualify for a VFAQ. (A sort of Europa league for FAQs. You'll know all about the Europa league, being a Chelsea fan and all.)

Their case is that we have knowingly failed to provide accounts that give a true and fair view of the financial circumstances of the club. So, taking the Etihad sponsorship as an example, their case is (a) HHSM/ADUG provided MCFC with funding that was in reality owner investment, but (b) this was dishonestly presented in the accounts as sponsorship from Etihad in order to circumvent FFP rules. The problem with the FA's case is that not only do our audited accounts show that this was actually genuine sponsorship income paid for services rendered, but so do Etihad's audited accounts. So they need to prove that this is not just a case of City getting one past our own auditors, this was basically a conspiracy at a very high level in Abu Dhabi that involved two major international companies presenting accounts that were known to be false. As has been made clear ad nauseam, this is an extremely serious allegation, that is tantamount to an actual allegation of fraud.

The consequence in limitation terms is this. I will break it down into paragraphs, that might help.

1. The arrangements between MCFC and the PL are essentially contractual, and subject to English law.

2. Unlike the UEFA rules, the PL rules do not include any limitation period. However, because the arrangements are subject to English law, the general limitation period of 6 years applies. See point 1.

3. The limitation period is however suspended in a case (I paraphrase in the interests of brevity) where fraud is alleged until the fraud comes to light. It is at that point that the 6 year period begins to run.

4. What this means is that if the PL can establish fraud, the 6 year period will not apply until the fraud came to light, which was the publication of the Der Spiegel articles in 2018.

5. To get over that hurdle, however, the PL needs to adduce very cogent evidence. And if they cannot, the ordinary 6 year rule will apply. See point 2.

6. For that reason, the charge of fraud is central to the case for two reasons: (a) because that is precisely what the PL is alleging, and (2) because if they cannot establish fraud, the complaints that pre-date 2017 (ie six years before the complaint was made) are time-barred.

100% right re the EL

I have made very little comment about the sponsorship because quite simply I am far from convinced either one way or another. I suspect that the PL will have pursued matters and documents that UEFA gave up on
Its why my focus has tended to be on the charges relating to the managers alleged dual contracts and the issues around image rights.
In another post I talked about Chicken and Egg situation. I see these areas as being hitherto untested and If the PL is right then that then causes them to revisit information under UEFA form (37? ) and of course of course under the PLs own version

 

[117 M34]

yep - more like nineteen twentieths, though

Which happens to be 95% - the figure tolmie said city know they can clear.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Which happens to be 95% - the figure tolmie said city know they can clear.

I love it when a plan comes together :)

 

[foggy1974]

Say the 5% is not non cooperation & the Premier league make it stick, can they throw the book at us (pardon the pun) for what would be minor breaches. If I remember rightly CAS decided that the £10m fine for non cooperation was as high as possible due to our standing.

 

[SilvaisSkyBlue]

100% right re the EL

I have made very little comment about the sponsorship because quite simply I am far from convinced either one way or another. I suspect that the PL will have pursued matters and documents that UEFA gave up on
Its why my focus has tended to be on the charges relating to the managers alleged dual contracts and the issues around image rights.
In another post I talked about Chicken and Egg situation. I see these areas as being hitherto untested and If the PL is right then that then causes them to revisit information under UEFA form (37? ) and of course of course under the PLs own version

No matter how many times this fúckwit is answered he comes back with Mancini contract & image rights.

He is expressing his own hopes & wishes and the issues he has raised have been explained, and clarified over and over and over and over again.

This fucking idiot is nothing more than a troll with a basic grasp of the charges trolling, it is up to whoever wants to respond to this fucking idiot (including me), but they will come back with the same fucking nonsense no matter how many times anyone replies to them.

This person is imposing their own view as they want to see it play out, no matter what reply they receive, it’s fucking boring and brings nothing to this discussion as their constant repeated posts have proven.