PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[KS55]

Our response will always be the same which is that we've complied with all legal process and as a result we haven't done anything wrong. The Premier League can't just create rules on what is good and bad on non-sporting issues because who are they to say otherwise? The rules can actually be deemed as damaging because punishments can harm clubs financially and this is where it will always be defeated in court, especially if it isn't done fairly and independently.

Everton were punished because they broke the rules but it's easy to prove that the punishment is ridiculous and actually stupid. Everton exceeded FFP by £20m and because of league position payouts their 10pt deduction could be worth far more than that, that's how stupid it is. Instead the Premier League is punishing them and making the problem even worse, it hardly saves clubs from going bust does it?

City can easily argue anything like this on the grounds of fairness. I know it's different but look at Real Madrid and Barcelona who are still going for a Super League and they haven't been punished. They haven't been punished because the Spanish courts have ruled that UEFA isn't allowed to punish them and so UEFA has no choice but to comply.

The emails etc aren't admissible in court so you can bet that they aren't admissible in an investigation conducted by a non-legal entity like the Premier League. The Premier League is actually just a company, it has no business really investigating other companies and handing out punishments for anything.

I have always thought it a problem where a single body runs a competition and also acts as the regulator. UEFA are the past masters at manipulating the rules to change the relative fortunes of clubs in their competitions. The PL is following suit. The independent regulator is a must.

 

[Eric Hitchmough]

Colin, don't take my word for it. Just read CAS. The consequences of the Independent Commission finding against us are similar to those had CAS found against us.

City themselves argued that the consequences of a finding against them was "that a finding that Etihad’s sponsorship contributions were funded, or procured to be funded, by HHSM and/or ADUG would require a conclusion that the evidence of several high-ranking officials of large international commercial enterprises …were false and that at least Mr Hogan if not Mr Pearce would be subject to criminal sanctions." (see page 72 of CAS). Their words not mine.

Likewise, there really is no question that the allegations in respect of the sponsorship contracts amount to an allegation of accounting fraud. They are alleging the revenue (and profits) from the sponsorship contracts incorporated in our accounts are, in essence, fake. It is that simple. Again, don't take my word for it. City's own skeleton argument said "The allegations made by the CFCB in these proceedings are serious and based on fraud and conspiracy involving MCFC, ADUG and the sponsors Etisalat and Etihad." (see extract on page 24 of CAS). Their argument not mine.

Most of the rest of the analysis is not hugely applicable here - these aren't allegations of subjective interpretations of the accounting standards. I've been involved in those cases professionally for years including successfully defending a 7 year SFO investigation, potential class actions and other claims. I can tell the difference.

I would definitely agree that the Mancini situation seems highly improbable given the sums involved. And Fordham was public so I don't see that being the main issue. But on the sponsorships, don't listen to me, listen to City themselves. CAS should give us some comfort but the amount evidence in play with the IC will be very different because we know UEFA tried to rely on a handful of documents. That was always hopeless for such serious allegations. Serious allegations require serious proof in the form of cogent evidence.

Your insight is always appreciated, Stefan. Even though I always come away feeling like we’re absolutely fucked!

 

[KS55]

I thought he was invited over to watch us play. We were playing shite so he was offered the job at half time by khaldoon. Who then text Hughes to tell him he was sacked and to clear his desk after the game? Well that’s the way the media portrayed it anyway!

Mancini was not there. Don’t believe all you read in the papers!

 

[Norman kneejerk]

Some tremendous quality contributions on here, genuinely a privilege to read them..
I'm hanging in there with the legal and accounting points with a reasonable grasp but one thing I would like to know is at what point will city get to know what the evidence of these alleged frauds, fictitious sponsorships actually is.
Is it a case of going to the hearing and waiting to see what they come up with or must everything be declared in advance so you have a good idea what is going to be said.
I'm guessing it's the latter but there must be adequate time scales I suppose.
Without getting into too much detail when will city know all this?

 

[Jam Tomorrow]

Colin, don't take my word for it. Just read CAS. The consequences of the Independent Commission finding against us are similar to those had CAS found against us.

City themselves argued that the consequences of a finding against them was "that a finding that Etihad’s sponsorship contributions were funded, or procured to be funded, by HHSM and/or ADUG would require a conclusion that the evidence of several high-ranking officials of large international commercial enterprises …were false and that at least Mr Hogan if not Mr Pearce would be subject to criminal sanctions." (see page 72 of CAS). Their words not mine.

Likewise, there really is no question that the allegations in respect of the sponsorship contracts amount to an allegation of accounting fraud. They are alleging the revenue (and profits) from the sponsorship contracts incorporated in our accounts are, in essence, fake. It is that simple. Again, don't take my word for it. City's own skeleton argument said "The allegations made by the CFCB in these proceedings are serious and based on fraud and conspiracy involving MCFC, ADUG and the sponsors Etisalat and Etihad." (see extract on page 24 of CAS). Their argument not mine.

Most of the rest of the analysis is not hugely applicable here - these aren't allegations of subjective interpretations of the accounting standards. I've been involved in those cases professionally for years including successfully defending a 7 year SFO investigation, potential class actions and other claims. I can tell the difference.

I would definitely agree that the Mancini situation seems highly improbable given the sums involved. And Fordham was public so I don't see that being the main issue. But on the sponsorships, don't listen to me, listen to City themselves. CAS should give us some comfort but the amount evidence in play with the IC will be very different because we know UEFA tried to rely on a handful of documents. That was always hopeless for such serious allegations. Serious allegations require serious proof in the form of cogent evidence.

Let’s just say the IC decide on the balance of probability the City sponsorship and revenues are fake. The most serious verdict they could reach. Let’s also say they decide City should be expelled from the Premier League, not a points deduction or fine, but expulsion.

As City would no longer be part of the EPL could the club then sue the EPL for taking this step to in effect should down a huge business?

Expulsion would in effect render the club stateless, Rick Parry the EPLs Trojan Horse at the EFL has already indicated City should not expect a place in the EFL if they are expelled.

I guess this is the doomsday scenario for City but I firmly believe it’s what the EPL want.

 

[slbsn]

Some tremendous quality contributions on here, genuinely a privilege to read them..
I'm hanging in there with the legal and accounting points with a reasonable grasp but one thing I would like to know is at what point will city get to know what the evidence of these alleged frauds, fictitious sponsorships actually is.
Is it a case of going to the hearing and waiting to see what they come up with or must everything be declared in advance so you have a good idea what is going to be said.
I'm guessing it's the latter but there must be adequate time scales I suppose.
Without getting into too much detail when will city know all this?

The parties will swap documents and will know the case they have to answer with some detail. And it is not for City to prove anything. It is for the PL to prove it.

 

[slbsn]

Let’s just say the IC decide on the balance of probability the City sponsorship and revenues are fake. The most serious verdict they could reach. Let’s also say they decide City should be expelled from the Premier League, not a points deduction or fine, but expulsion.

As City would no longer be part of the EPL could the club then sue the EPL for taking this step to in effect should down a huge business?

Expulsion would in effect render the club stateless, Rick Parry the EPLs Trojan Horse at the EFL has already indicated City should not expect a place in the EFL if they are expelled.

I guess this is the doomsday scenario for City but I firmly believe it’s what the EPL want.

No - if it is all proven and all appeals/challenges are exhausted the club won't be suing anyone

 

[Jam Tomorrow]

No - if it is all proven and all appeals/challenges are exhausted the club won't be suing anyone

think I expected that answer Stefan, my concern and of others is this IC will be a kangaroo court and City will be found guilty because that’s the desired outcome. Irrespective of irrefutable evidence to the contrary or lack of a smoking gun from the EPL.

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

Colin, don't take my word for it. Just read CAS. The consequences of the Independent Commission finding against us are similar to those had CAS found against us.

City themselves argued that the consequences of a finding against them was "that a finding that Etihad’s sponsorship contributions were funded, or procured to be funded, by HHSM and/or ADUG would require a conclusion that the evidence of several high-ranking officials of large international commercial enterprises …were false and that at least Mr Hogan if not Mr Pearce would be subject to criminal sanctions." (see page 72 of CAS). Their words not mine.

Likewise, there really is no question that the allegations in respect of the sponsorship contracts amount to an allegation of accounting fraud. They are alleging the revenue (and profits) from the sponsorship contracts incorporated in our accounts are, in essence, fake. It is that simple. Again, don't take my word for it. City's own skeleton argument said "The allegations made by the CFCB in these proceedings are serious and based on fraud and conspiracy involving MCFC, ADUG and the sponsors Etisalat and Etihad." (see extract on page 24 of CAS). Their argument not mine.

Most of the rest of the analysis is not hugely applicable here - these aren't allegations of subjective interpretations of the accounting standards. I've been involved in those cases professionally for years including successfully defending a 7 year SFO investigation, potential class actions and other claims. I can tell the difference.

I would definitely agree that the Mancini situation seems highly improbable given the sums involved. And Fordham was public so I don't see that being the main issue. But on the sponsorships, don't listen to me, listen to City themselves. CAS should give us some comfort but the amount evidence in play with the IC will be very different because we know UEFA tried to rely on a handful of documents. That was always hopeless for such serious allegations. Serious allegations require serious proof in the form of cogent evidence.

Am I right in thinking we not only declined to hand over requested documents to UEFA, but also, after they asked for them, CAS, who then decided of their volition to proceed without them……or did we only give CAS some of what they asked for, or something like that?
If that was the case then it doesn’t exactly give me a warm fuzzy feeling that this time the tribunal will be dealing with a full deck, including the cards we declined to produce last time around!
Or have I imagined all of that?!

 

[dadnlad]

My comment was to compare real world business with the fantasy world of football , no doubt we have signed up to rules and regulations , surprised clubs like Barca and Real and oursleves have not tested FFP in court , it would be interesting to see that outcome.
The Premier league have bitten off more than they can chew , if they are accusing us of fraud they are going have to gather some compelling evidence not just from our accounts but also our multi-national corporate businesses who are our partners , i dont think any of our sponsors would be willing to open their books to the Premier league and very much doubt they could leagally demand to do this unless again they have compelling evidence. Personally i think this is a fishing expediton by Masters and his cronies , throw 155 charges at us and see how many stick.

you can see whats coming from whatsapp group " what have these multi nation organisations got to hide why wont they open books for kangroo court "