You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules
- Thread starter ayrshire_blue
- Start date
Obviously I bow to your expertise in this field! Makes you wonder why the PL are charging us with offences dating back to 2009/10 in that case.Limitation period. And I’m pretty sure it does, but from the date of discovery, not the date of the alleged fraud/concealment.
mac
Well-Known Member
Why get rid of ffp now. We are light years ahead. The istree clubs are shiting it over ffp.FFP was really a problem to City in its early stages where prolonged investment was needed.
Their problem now that we have been self sufficient for several years is that City continue to invest.
Tightening FFPs impact simply makes it more difficult for the other clubs to comply so works in our favour.
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
I suspect it's to do with the fact that they know they're on thin ice legally and we'll contest the case on limitation grounds, which will allow the media to reprise the "they only got off on a technicality" schtick.Obviously I bow to your expertise in this field! Makes you wonder why the PL are charging us with offences dating back to 2009/10 in that case.
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
Not my field!Obviously I bow to your expertise in this field! Makes you wonder why the PL are charging us with offences dating back to 2009/10 in that case.
The answer is either
1. Those matters were not discovered until more recently.
2. They do not think limitation periods apply to the agreement between them and City.
3. They are cunts. *
* 3. should be read in conjunction with 1. and/or 2.
The Saudis now have the perfect leverage.
Admit our clubs into the Champions League or we simply go all golf and bankroll a separate comp under this Super League guise.
People rubbished the golf breakaway but with Real Madrid and Barca on board, the Saudis will consider it a risk worth paying.
Doesn't matter the government will stop any new super league
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
At last, after seven years - a Brexit benefit!Doesn't matter the government will stop any new super league
Knew we’d find one eventually.
I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but I do pay particular attention to patterns, frequencies & coincidences.
Until an official date for the hearing is announced, I suppose everything is hearsay. However, a date of next September sounds about right, which gives the adjudication panel ample time to get familiar with the particulars of the case.
Agreed, time to review the charges, evidence & any resultant appeals could easily add up to the speculated four year process, & if we appeal the process to the UK civil courts, it could take even longer.
However, in terms of the coincidences & UK/Abu Dhabi governmental involvement, I believe they've zero bearing on the strength or weakness of our defence.
Neither UEFA or The Premier League have been playing straight with us from the outset. It's been move & counter move, as they tried to strangle Sheikh Mansour's Manchester City at birth, & we've attempted to find ways around them halting our progress.
If FFP hadn't been created to stop us, none of this would be happening, but it is what it is. We did what we did to progress, & had our interim accounts agreed in March 2013 with UEFA.
We submitted our full audited accounts a month later, by which time UEFA had shifted their monitoring period back by 12 months without telling us, meaning we went from being £3m inside FFP to being £3 outside, with the resultant punitive punishments & sanctions. Khaldoon was livid!
He said then that City would take 'a pinch' this time, but the next time UEFA came after us, rather than pay a £30m fine, we'd spend £30m on the world's finest Lawyers & splatter them!
Months later Platini & Blatter were arrested by the FBI for fraud involving the use of US dollars, which I found seriously odd.
Then the PL come after City on UEFA's behalf. Abu Dhabi pulls its £10bn UK investment. The UK Government manages to revive the deal, but a month later & out of the Blue, they tell the PL they're setting up an independent football regulator.
Three days later the PL charge City. Nine months later, the Independent Regulator is included in the King's Speech, meaning it's part of the Government's business before the next election.
Personally, I think the timing of all of this is more than sheer coincidence. As for our innocence or guilt, we already know we won't get a fair hearing with UEFA or the PL, so as Khaldoon said in 2014, if they came after us again, this time it'll be with our gloves off, & it seems that exactly what's happened mate.
It's the hacked emails that kicked all this off nothing else
Dribble
Well-Known Member
Got it in one mate. I spent a few days shitting myself & fearing the worse until I stood back & took a global view of it all.Good post. If the PL are so certain that we have committed fraud they should have referred the case to the Serious Fraud Office. On the basis that they have not done that it suggests to me that the 115 charges are simply a smear campaign against City and are designed to appease the baying mob made up mostly of fans that support old big teams suffering from year on year under performance.
I'm cautious by nature, so I know we can't rule anything out, but if City have committed serious fraud, the SFO, FCA, HMRC & the UK Government should have been lawfully alerted, & I'm sure they'd be up our arse right now.
In fact, if UEFA & the PL accuse us of inflating our income, presumably we've paid far higher sums in tax? HMRC & The Government will be our best mates if that's the case! :-)
I think it's mostly bullshit, & I noted the Government's statement that the independent regulator can act retrospectively, so even if the PL stiff us, the new regulator can reverse whatever decision the PL's panel reach. \0/
johnnytapia
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Feb 2012
- Messages
- 10,579
If the date of issue of claim is 29th Feb, could you count back 24 years?That makes sense because in a civil claim the date you count back from is the date of issue of the claim. I seem to recall that the day the cause of action accrues is excluded from the calculation so it’s actually six years and one day in practical terms for contractual claims.