PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Chappie]

Chris I have sent you a PM.

Boris,Liz or Rishi ?

 

[aguero93:20]

Boris,Liz or Rishi ?

The only true PM

 

[Centurions]

What because I have said something that could possibly be construed in me being conscious of a possible negative outcome for City? My god have a look through my posts do you see anything in them that suggests anything but sickening obsession with City?

People are allowed to say things on forums that create debate its the whole point.

Making shit up that has no basis in reality isn't creating debate, it's talking bollocks.

Also called journalism nowadays BTW.

 

[Chris in London]

Lets not forget that for the PL to make good on this one, you'd have to add in at least, AL JAZIRA SPORTS AND CULTURAL CLUB LIMITED, SPARKLEGLOW HOLDINGS LTD and, individually, Roberto Mancini and Phil Anderton (CEO that signed for Al Jazira) as yet further third parties to a conspiracy to save MCFC the £1.5m cost. None of these entities are likely to give witness evidence in support of the conspiracy/sham. Without that, this one looks very very difficult to prove to me if the panel are working to a High Court, English Law standard (as they should be).

There is a further aspect that shouldn't be ignored (in my opinion). Sometimes even decent lawyers/organisations are simply naive and don't really understand the substance/consequence of the allegations they are making. It is not impossible for organisations to overreach - this was one of the points I made in this piece... https://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/business-of-sport/arid-41072465.html

Given the additional elements of proof required for this piece and given it occurred 13 years ago (could be 14 years before any hearing), it was an area the PL obviously should have ignored especially given its (im)materiality. But they didn't. This suggests a lack of coherent, strategic thinking on the part of the PL.

Thanks for this - really enjoyed the Examiner piece.

I suppose from the club’s perspective it doesn’t really matter why the PL have brought these charges. Whether they were under massive pressure from the red shirts, whether they over reached themselves, whether they genuinely believe that the integrity of their product requires them to go over Mancini’s contract in 2012 or Yaya’s image rights payment with a fine tooth comb, the club still have to face the charges and deal with them on their merits. The mistakes the PL made as regards the rules they alleged we had broken is a matter that, in itself, has no substance, but it does point towards getting the charges out in a hurry. (And it’s quite amusing that we can point to being charged with letting the grass grow too long, which does help in PR terms if not in legal terms.) The mistakes are in themselves suggestive (though not conclusive) of the PL being under a certain degree of pressure. It is interesting but probably fruitless to speculate on who put the. Under that sort of pressure and why.

Completely agree on the need for evidence that neither party under the various contracts intended to abide by the terms of those contracts before these charges could be upheld. You simply can’t say of a contract that appears to have been entered into for valid reasons (and was relied on by both parties) “yeah well that’s bogus” unless both parties accept (or, having heard from both parties the tribunal accepts) that in truth neither intended to be bound by its terms. It’s no small thing to allege that a transaction is a sham. The PL appear to have done that with gay abandon.

 

[Chris in London]

The only true PM

Lettuce hope not…

 

[HelloCity]

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.

Thanks Chris. How would you even evidence that level of fraud? Surely you’d need eye witnesses and testimonies.

 

[RayCTID]

The only true PM

One of the greatest in the modern era

 

[Chris in London]

Thanks Chris. How would you even evidence that level of fraud? Surely you’d need eye witnesses and testimonies.

Yes, I think so. Take the Etihad sponsorship issue. Our accounts say “Etihad sponsored us £X.” The auditors look at the contract, tick that box, look at the bank statements, see £X coming in to City’s bank accounts from Etihad, tick that box and move on to the next bit.

Meanwhile, in a different accountant’s office, Etihad’s accounts say “We sponsored City £X.” Their auditors look at the contract , tick that box, look at the bank statements, see £X going from Etihad to MCFC, tick that box and move on to the next bit.

Given that our accounts mirror Etihad’s in this respect I don’t see how you can establish fraud without some actual direct, first hand evidence that the payment from Etihad to MCFC was actually disguised owner investment rather than what it appears to be on the face of the documents. Someone who says, in effect, “I know what the accounts say but I was in the meeting where the question for discussion was how we camouflage ADUG putting £X into MCFC without UEFA getting wind of it, and that’s what we actually did. I know because I was there.”

Maybe they have that evidence. But I don’t see how a paper trail alone can possibly get them there. Which, as I understand it, is all they have.

 

[LeonardoDaVnci]

When i was stood in the Bernabeu watching the Blues play Real I can honestly say that at no time did I ever question the integrity of financial shenanigans that goes on in global corporations. But sometimes when I recall the following I do wonder:-

In 2008 Barclays Bank (the main sponsor of the Premier League for many years) was essentially bankrupt. The UKGOV were desperate for anyone to save the bank by buying a majority shareholding. In a £3.5B deal brokered by Amanda Stavely (yes thats' right, now a co-owner of NUFC) the bank was saved by HHSM. So there was no notion of disguised equity funding by a nation state when it came to the PL sponsors. No, because at the time those concepts had not been created and targeted at MCFC by professor Wegner. It would seem Barclays Bank (the main sponsors of that paragon of virtue the Premier League) were guilty of serious deceit when negotiating the deal. But of course that didn't stop the PL taking the sponsorship on any ethical/moral grounds.

You could not make this stuff up. In case of any doubters here are some MSM links to the events :-

Amanda Staveley loses high court action against Barclays

High-profile financier sought £660m damages saying bank bosses misled her as she helped secure deal to save bank in 2008

www.theguardian.com

Revealed: The truth about Barclays and the Abu Dhabi investment

Amanda Staveley earned an astonishing £30 million fee for her role in helping to secure Abu Dhabi’s £3.5 billion investment in Barclays in 2008, a deal on which Sheikh Mansour made a profit of more than £3 billion. Euromoney reveals the extraordinary tale behind that trade, the battle for £110…

www.euromoney.com

 

[slbsn]

Yes, I think so. Take the Etihad sponsorship issue. Our accounts say “Etihad sponsored us £X.” The auditors look at the contract, tick that box, look at the bank statements, see £X coming in to City’s bank accounts from Etihad, tick that box and move on to the next bit.

Meanwhile, in a different accountant’s office, Etihad’s accounts say “We sponsored City £X.” Their auditors look at the contract , tick that box, look at the bank statements, see £X going from Etihad to MCFC, tick that box and move on to the next bit.

Given that our accounts mirror Etihad’s in this respect I don’t see how you can establish fraud without some actual direct, first hand evidence that the payment from Etihad to MCFC was actually disguised owner investment rather than what it appears to be on the face of the documents. Someone who says, in effect, “I know what the accounts say but I was in the meeting where the question for discussion was how we camouflage ADUG putting £X into MCFC without UEFA getting wind of it, and that’s what we actually did. I know because I was there.”

Maybe they have that evidence. But I don’t see how a paper trail alone can possibly get them there. Which, as I understand it, is all they have.

On these allegations, in my view, even that level of "whistleblower" evidence wouldn't suffice.

Bottom line in a case like this is that the PL has to establish a proven, technical and factual conclusion that the original accounting was actually wrong (either deliberately or by negligence).

This can probably only be achieved in this case by an expert witness being more convincing than the defence expert witness having taken account of the written audited accounts and supporting docs that historically exist, factual witnesses and non-audit documents/evidence.

So, I'd say you'd need at least one witness of fact who supports the case with first hand experience of the matters in question actually being executed (not merely discussed or considered) and who would be potentially self-incriminating themselves in admitting their professional involvement in those matters. All pretty unlikely.

You'd also need documentary evidence of the execution of that scheme AND, therefore (or otherwise) a conclusion by the tribunal that defence witnesses were lying or unreliable and had, in some way and to the extent that they had been involved in the audit, misled the auditors. This doesn't seem to be a case where the judgment could fudge that issue by saying they had "faulty recollections". Some of the matters are not that old.

So whilst this sort of conclusion has occurred in some rare cases it feels a very high hurdle for the PL even on a balance of probabilities standard. All of this assumes the process in place is fair and in line with English law which I do expect it to be.