PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Dribble said:
I'm not hung up on fraud, breaches or whatever the PL & onlookers choose to call it. I wanted answers & solutions to the 115 breaches we've allegedly committed. I've tried to keep very focused on this.

1. The issue is UEFA/PL Rules & UK Law. Our breaches are being heard under UEFA/PL Rules, which suggests we've done nothing wrong in accordance with UK Law. That's my understanding of our legal standing for those fretting about the legal ramifications.

2. As for the breaches, the PL & UEFA can accuse us of eating babies, the fact is they have to prove it, & the only proof I've heard of is a sentence in a stolen email that City says is presented in isolation, so therefore taken out of context. The rest seems to be supposition based on the balance of probabilities.

This is it. I've absolutely no idea why some have become fixated on the word 'fraud', which neither City, UEFA or the PL has mentioned.

What we've been accused of may amount to FFP breaches, but fraud is a statutory & legal matter so doesn't seemingly matter with our case, albeit that's what the accusations amount to. But if this is the case, why don't the PL come out & plainly say so?

This is why I've not hung myself up on the term 'fraud'. I just wanted to understand the charges, understand the legal ramifications, understand the PL's adjudication process, & know what City's response is & our options, both within the PL's sphere of influence, & legally.

If you want to discuss fraud, you'll need to ask those who keep going on about it. Hopefully this clarifies matters.
Click to expand...
This is largely incorrect. City themselves described the UEFA charges (to which the PL charges relate but this time under English law) as a serious allegation of fraud and conspiracy. Fraud can be civil or criminal or both. Happy New Year!
 

Attachments

  • IMG_9043.jpeg
    IMG_9043.jpeg
    215.1 KB · Views: 163
projectriver said:
This is largely incorrect. City themselves described the UEFA charges (to which the PL charges relate but this time under English law) as a serious allegation of fraud and conspiracy. Fraud can be civil or criminal or both. Happy New Year!
Click to expand...

You've given a much shorter and pithier explanation than I could. I was three paragraphs in, having started a long and tedious rebuttal but I deleted it when I saw yours.

However, I did use the phrase "another ill-considered screed of sesquipedalian bullshit". I'd to ensure that this formulation isn't lost.
 
Last edited:
halfcenturyup said:
For a start, this bit:


So in the space of two paragraphs in the same post, you managed to completely misrepresent how the 1980 Limitation Act and the 1968 Theft Act are applicable to the PL's case against City. Way to go.

There are more, including many irrelevant analogies that completely miss the point, and quite frankly, I haven't got the strength. Also, I have already abandoned my New Year's resolution not to engage with you on any legal issues. On the first day, already.

Happy New Year by the way. All Blues should have a great year even if we disagree on almost everything. :)
Click to expand...

Can you two not put this behind you for everyone else’s sake?
 
projectriver said:
This is largely incorrect. City themselves described the UEFA charges (to which the PL charges relate but this time under English law) as a serious allegation of fraud and conspiracy. Fraud can be civil or criminal or both. Happy New Year!
Click to expand...
I'll ask you this question which I posed yesterday regarding the six year time bar
@petrusha posted that if the charges were filed under English law, there would be a six year limitation

The PL charges go back to 2008
They charged us a year ago, Jan 23
Der Speigel's revelations were in November 2018

The PL is charging us from 15 years earlier and City's legal team will argue the six year limitation is from Jan last year when the chargeswere brought, but the financial information was made public by DS in November 18

Would it be fairly safe to assume that the six year cut off will be applied and be November 2013 as this is six years from the DS articles?
 
So with the hearing starting in around nine months time, judgement released in around eighteen months time and any appeal by either party completed in around two and a half years time with little or nothing to go on until judgement is out there is lots of scope for this thread to veer even more off tangent.

Welcome to 2024 :(
 
dickie davies said:
I'll ask you this question which I posed yesterday regarding the six year time bar
@petrusha posted that if the charges were filed under English law, there would be a six year limitation

The PL charges go back to 2008
They charged us a year ago, Jan 23
Der Speigel's revelations were in November 2018

The PL is charging us from 15 years earlier and City's legal team will argue the six year limitation is from Jan last year when the chargeswere brought, but the financial information was made public by DS in November 18

Would it be fairly safe to assume that the six year cut off will be applied and be November 2013 as this is six years from the DS articles?
Click to expand...

I’m also interested to know if 6 years comes into play, what are the dates?
 
cheekybids said:
I’m also interested to know if 6 years comes into play, what are the dates?
Click to expand...

Chris in London said:
Let me try.

(Again.)

The relationship between City and the PL is essentially contractual. One of the terms of that contract is that any disputes will be referred to an independent panel for determination. One of the other provisions is that we will provide accurate accounts.

The claim against City is that we have breached this contract. The way in which we are said to have breached it is serious, and is an allegation of criminal conduct. But the forum in which this dispute will be resolved is that provided for in the contract, and the contract is expressly subject to English law.

This has certain consequence.

One is that English law applies to questions of limitation. Note that an allegation of criminality does not change the limitation period, because, to repeat, the dispute between City and the PL is at its heart a claim of breach of contract. So the rules that say serious charges (like murder or fraud) have no limitation period is inapplicable because this is a civil case (albeit one that includes allegations of fraud.) To put the same point another way, the allegation of criminality does not lift this dispute out of the realms of civil claims.

So, as Petrushka has (repeatedly) argued (correctly) the general 6 year limitation period applies, with the proviso that the fraudulent concealment of the breach would mean that the six year period would only begin once the fraud is discovered.

Maybe this particular groundhog can now be laid to rest.
Click to expand...
 
petrusha said:
You've given a much shorter and pithier explanation than I could. I was three paragraphs in, having started a long and tedious rebuttal but I deleted it when I saw yours.

However, I did use the phrase "another ill-considered screed of sesquipedalian bullshit". I'd to ensue that this formulation isn't lost.
Click to expand...

variety.jpg
 
KS55 said:
Yes. Social media are not typical in any sphere, they just represent people with a strong view, often nonsensical. Let’s not fall into the trap.



The owner can lend to the club without ffp probs. See Abramovich, Mansour. Interest is included in the expenditure for ffp, as is any application of the loan to a purchase.
Click to expand...
I know they can lend to club, but it is the profit and loss that is used for FFP so shareholder investment is capital rather than P&L so how does that help?

Abramovich lent the cash to Chelsea, and the Sheikh largely invested as equity, but FFP is designed to stop rich owners investing through either route. Hence why we were charged by UEFA - we were accused of putting owner money in as sponsorship.

If loans or equity investment are allowed vs FFP then there would have been no reason for us to be accused of doing this as the Sheikh could simply have made direct loans or equity investment.
 
dickie davies said:
I'll ask you this question which I posed yesterday regarding the six year time bar
@petrusha posted that if the charges were filed under English law, there would be a six year limitation

The PL charges go back to 2008
They charged us a year ago, Jan 23
Der Speigel's revelations were in November 2018

The PL is charging us from 15 years earlier and City's legal team will argue the six year limitation is from Jan last year when the chargeswere brought, but the financial information was made public by DS in November 18

Would it be fairly safe to assume that the six year cut off will be applied and be November 2013 as this is six years from the DS articles?
Click to expand...
Nothing is safe to assume. The relevant date for limitations could be subject to extensive submission. If the panel believes it is all concealed dishonesty the limitations may not apply at all. But otherwise a lot of matters could be limitation barred again.
 
Last edited:
Eebo said:
I know they can lend to club, but it is the profit and loss that is used for FFP so shareholder investment is capital rather than P&L so how does that help?

Abramovich lent the cash to Chelsea, and the Sheikh largely invested as equity, but FFP is designed to stop rich owners investing through either route. Hence why we were charged by UEFA - we were accused of putting owner money in as sponsorship.

If loans or equity investment are allowed vs FFP then there would have been no reason for us to be accused of doing this as the Sheikh could simply have made direct loans or equity investment.
Click to expand...

But he wouldn't have been able to spend it because there would have been a shortfall in income , and so "profit". If he did what the PL claim, which, I am pretty sure he didn't.

That is the "benefit" part of their allegation.
 
halfcenturyup said:
But he wouldn't have been able to spend it because there would have been a shortfall in income , and so "profit". If he did what the PL claim, which, I am pretty sure he didn't.

That is the "benefit" part of their allegation.
Click to expand...
That is exactly my point as my earlier post was asking why the Times are reporting that the Rags can spend big again because of Scruffy Jim’s investment
 
Eebo said:
That is exactly my point as my earlier post was asking why the Times are reporting that the Rags can spend big again because of Scruffy Jim’s investment
Click to expand...

They can spend on infrastructure, not wages and salaries (except to the extent their P/L allows it).

If I understand it, the 300 million is for fixing OT and Carrington.
 
I still don’t get it. I knows there’s a few ifs buts & maybe’s but if it was fraud, what is the discovery date?

Surely it’s the Der Spiegel article, no?
 
cheekybids said:
I still don’t get it. I knows there’s a few ifs buts & maybe’s but if it was fraud, what is the discovery date?

Surely it’s the Der Spiegel article, no?
Click to expand...
Yes but that would mean they are in time for the charges/claim vs City (they had until Nov 2024 on that basis).
 
petrusha said:
You've given a much shorter and pithier explanation than I could. I was three paragraphs in, having started a long and tedious rebuttal but I deleted it when I saw yours.

However, I did use the phrase "another ill-considered screed of sesquipedalian bullshit". I'd to ensure that this formulation isn't lost.
Click to expand...
I googled it. Good work.

The Bloviator 2.0
 
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