PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Ducado]

What is your view on whether the independent panel is competent to determine criminal activity has taken place? I am beginning to think it would be a huge risk for the panel to decide a fraud has been committed, then to have a criminal prosecution by the relevant authorities thrown out for lack of evidence.

It would be much more sensible to me for the PL, if they think criminal activity has taken place, to refer it to the relevant authorities first, and get an actual conviction, before applying a sporting sanction. Is that a sensible legal position or just an accountant's ramblings?

As you say, if they can't prove "fraud", pretty much all the breaches are time-barred except the remnants of the image rights sale and Etihad, if they are brave (or foolish) enough to open that one up again.

That’s what I was thinking, you can’t go around accusing people of fraud without proper evidence, and if you had it you would be duty bound to report it to the relevant authorities

 

[halfcenturyup]

Not a cat in hells chance that Everton get relegated, i dont think there was ever any intention of this being a possibility.

Even with the deduction there are 3 worse teams than them, if for some reason they are struggling then i can see the appeal being brought forward and enough points being given back to keep them safe. This is just the PL puffing out their chests.

Sounds like another 300 million complaint from the three relegated clubs for the PL to consider right there. The PL has opened Pandora's box and you know happens then. Anyway, the appeal will be sorted quickly I think. 5 points immediate and the other 5 suspended would be my guess.

 

[cheekybids]

I see the hatchets are out, & freshly sharpened regarding the 115. After a lull for a few months, I expect all the regular outlets will be ramping up their “Yes, But City’s 115” argument ad nauseum.
The 10 point deduction for Everton seems incredibly harsh, & it seems to more of a bully boy tactic & setting a precedent for future actions. We all know they’ve been after City for years, this stinks of sending a message, a footballing horses head in the bed.

Good we need galvanising to add the club World Cup before defending our treble.

 

[feedmpenzaandhewillscore]

That’s what I was thinking, you can’t go around accusing people of fraud without proper evidence, and if you had it you would be duty bound to report it to the relevant authorities

Surely it’s a criminal act that needs pursuing first rather than some sporting sanction to keep United and Liverpool happy. Where’s the inland revenue in all of this? Should they have not been taking the front door of the Etihad when those hacked emails got put into the public domain?

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

What is your view on whether the independent panel is competent to determine criminal activity has taken place? I am beginning to think it would be a huge risk for the panel to decide a fraud has been committed, then to have a criminal prosecution by the relevant authorities thrown out for lack of evidence.

They aren’t competent to determine criminal activity, but they don’t need to be. They simple have to determine, on the balance of probabilities, whether the matters alleged (which amount to fraud) have been proven.

Plenty of cases of civil fraud don’t trouble the criminal authorities and thereby don’t see the light of day in a criminal court.

And just because the civil standard of proof (with different rules of evidence and disclosure) has been met, doesn’t mean the criminal one will be.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980 provides that where an action is based upon the fraud of the defendant, the limitation period does not begin to run until the claimant has ‘discovered the fraud…or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it.’

If City are guilty as alleged, then they have committed fraud. If not in a criminal sense, then certainly in a contractual one.

I don't believe that's necessarily the case. Taking the image rights issue, this was discussed with UEFA when they became aware of it, who weren't happy with the arrangement but seem to have tacitly agreed that it wasn't actually illegal to do this in the way we did. We'd sold those rights to Fordham, which was a legitimate and recorded transaction.

To prove fraud, they'd have to show that we knowingly did something to deceive or misstate our accounts. Chelsea allegedly paying agents from offshore accounts would be fraud.

 

[johncity]

Good we need galvanising to add the club World Cup before defending our treble.

I couldn’t of put it better all this shit the red brigade scum and media put out there it just makes us stronger CTID

 

[bluemonkey71]

Another example of what scum headline hunters infest the football media.

That journo should have been thrown out that day.

 

[Asa's left peg]

If Liverpool lose out on chumps qualification by 1 point will they sue the pl and pigmol for the bad decision they had?
Where does it end?

Christ! Don't they normally settle for a written apology?

 

[Eric Hitchmough]

If Liverpool lose out on chumps qualification by 1 point will they sue the pl and pigmol for the bad decision they had?
Where does it end?

That entitled shower of thundercunts will sue if you look at them the wrong way. Or spill your pint on their shell suits.