PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Oldham Exile said:
I know that it must be frustrating for you (and others) to keep having to repeat the same points again and again

But, from one of (what I am sure is) the vast majority of fans on this thread - I just want to state how helpful and welcomed the explanations are - especially this one - which could not be clearer
Click to expand...

Thank you.

How’s Cyprus?
 
halfcenturyup said:
Not trying to be harsh or anything, but do you know how many "back room staff" have left this season and how that compares to previous years? You may have a point but it's impossible to tell without some comparisons.
Click to expand...
I would imagine the backroom staff won't be on mega money either & they will be the ones most concerned about the stability of their livelyhoods. That's not meant to sound negative in anyway but is different to the majority of the fans who will stick with the club if the worse happens.
 
foggy1974 said:
I would imagine the backroom staff won't be on mega money either & they will be the ones most concerned about the stability of their livelyhoods. That's not meant to sound negative in anyway but is different to the majority of the fans who will stick with the club if the worse happens.
Click to expand...
Why wouldn’t they be on good money? I’d hazard a guess (as you have) that they’re on more than similar staff elsewhere. The reason they leave is for promotion - believing that they are ready for the next level. But other clubs don’t have the quality & infrastructure that we have and many moves are not a sunccess
 
Chris in London said:
In relation to the Al Jazira contract, the exact same problem arises. There is a contact between Mancini (or his company, I forget which) and Al Jazira (the UAE club owned by HHSM) undwer which Mancini was required to provide certain services in exchange for which he would receive a certain amount of money. If that is a genuine contract, that is the end of that particular issue. So the PL would need to show it was not a genuine contract.

But to show it is not a genuine contract the PL will need to show that the contract was, according to English law, a sham. That is a very tall order in itself, because there is a very strong presumption that the agreements entered into by parties are intended to be lawful and binding. To allege that a document purporting to be a contract between A and B is in fact a sham entered into to disguise the true arrangements between them is tantamount to an allegation of fraud in itself. Especially when you bear in mind that the fundamental charge is that we knowingly presented misleading accounts to the PL and passed them off as being a true and fair presentation of our financial circumstances.

So the same point about limitation applies. As with the sponsorship claims, either the PL demonstrate we are guilty of fraud or, bearing in mind the age of the matters complained about, they pack up and go home.

They have made some incredibly serious allegations against the highest officers of MCFC. The only possible logical explanations are that they have the evidence that they think will persuade an independent panel that we are guilty of the very serious accusations made against us - and that evidence would have to be very considerably stronger than anything that has been put in the public domain thus far - or they brought the charges under pressure from MCFC's competitors on and off the pitch.
Click to expand...

Just to add to the above, I presume this is why there are noises from City claiming that all matters will be put to bed this time. At the CAS, the time-barred charges weren't examined and this therefore allowed our detractors to claim we got off on a technicality. In the forthcoming PL proceedings, no one should be justified in making the same claim that was widespread after the CAS case because the substantive issues on all charges entailing dishonest concealment and deception actually determine whether the limitation period applies or not.

I also agree with your last paragraph. In terms of the PL's rationale behind bringing the charges they have, those seem to be the only two possible explanations.
 
CC1 said:
Why wouldn’t they be on good money? I’d hazard a guess (as you have) that they’re on more than similar staff elsewhere. The reason they leave is for promotion - believing that they are ready for the next level. But other clubs don’t have the quality & infrastructure that we have and many moves are not a sunccess
Click to expand...
Depends what the difference is between good money & mega money
 
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
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.