PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[BerkshireBlue]

In English Law we've done nothing wrong or illegal. BUT according to the Premier League's "Rules", they reckon we're guilty.

The PL's rules are NOT the law of the land. They're the rules of their private members club, which they can kick us out of.

This is why no statutory bodies have ever been involved, & never will. The PL are essentially acting as Judge, Jury & Executioner, hence why the UK Government has stepped in with an independent regulator, because the PL are ultimately threatening £10bn of UK investment from Abu Dhabi.

Nothing stands in the way of big money, as UEFA & the PL have found out. ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

Overstating revenue is a criminal act in UK law that results in a prison sentence.

 

[Dribble]

Doesn’t even exist in English law anymore since the 2003 Criminal Justice Act.

It wasn't abolished, ot was amended because a question regarding DNA was raised in the Commons.

Now DNA evidence was accepted, MP's argued why should someone be allowed protection under double jeopardy, if conclusive DNA evidence is found in later years proving their guilt?

Conversely, DNA could also be the conclusive evidence needed to prove someone's innocence.

This was the amendment made, but double jeopardy still exists in UK Law.

This is why legally I don't think the PL would have a leg to stand on just on the point of double jeopardy.

When you take into account that no statutory bodies have been in contact over criminal charges being filed against us, it should be obvious for all to see that these charges are nothing more than a steaming pile of bullshit, designed to besmirch our name & character.

 

[abu13]

As much as I believe the club and feel the charges are bollocks we all know we are going to have the none co-operation charges upheld. No matter what we will be portrayed as being guilty.

I just hope that when this is all concluded the club come out fighting with a clear communication to the fans.

If the charges go against us then I suspect we will go down the route of legal challenges.

 

[KS55]

I think they must have included each year for each of the alleged breaches whereas UEFA just considered the years the emails related to. Etihad for all years 2008-18, for example, rather than UEFA just 2012-2014 (was it)?

Yes, I think they may have worked hard to distinguish their case. Nevertheless, I think part of our argument will be that this is essentially just a rehash. (Some of the charges, that is.)

 

[Dribble]

You mean 2014 or 2020?

2014. Many of the charges relate to the period of 2009 - 2015. Most of them were tackled by UEFA 12 months previously, hence the £50m fine, CL squad reduction & the £50m per season transfer limit for 3 seasons.

 

[M18CTID]

Couldn't it be argued that the Der Spiegel article was merely a rehash of the charges we faced in 2014? Doesn't this fall under double jeopardy?

No. Our settlement agreement with UEFA in 2014 was to do with overspending. The later Der Spiegel stuff was related to allegations of disguised owner funding. Two totally different things.
What could be argued is that if some of the PL stuff turns out to be a re-hash of the charges that we won on at CAS then why are they bothering to go down that road again? Smacks of desperation to me.

 

[KS55]

Doesn’t even exist in English law anymore since the 2003 Criminal Justice Act.

No, it does I think. Prosecution has to get pre trial permission on narrow grounds to re try after acquittal. Without new evidence, you could still plead Autrefois acquit….i stand to be corrected by someone still practising.

 

[Dribble]

Overstating revenue is a criminal act in UK law that results in a prison sentence.

Overstating revenue could be part of a valuation scam, which is an SFO & FCA matter usually relating to share trading, so granted, yes.

However, City aren't publicly trading our shares to gain from such a stunt. Even then, we'd need to ensure the share gains were worth vastly more than the additional revenue taxes we'd have to pay, to make the risk remotely worth taking.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Yes, I think they may have worked hard to distinguish their case. Nevertheless, I think part of our argument will be that this is essentially just a rehash. (Some of the charges, that is.)

Surely.

I still think the real issue is that the club hasn't provided any evidence from third parties to the investigation because, under the rules at the time, they weren't obliged to. In which case, none of the alleged breaches were resolved to the PL's satisfaction and had to be referred, which is why so many for so many years. If that is so, the club just provides the external evidence previously given to CAS and much more besides and, hey presto, similar verdict to CAS.

That would explain a lot.

But wtf do I know?

 

[Dribble]

No. Our settlement agreement with UEFA in 2014 was to do with overspending. The later Der Spiegel stuff was related to allegations of disguised owner funding. Two totally different things.
What could be argued is that if some of the PL stuff turns out to be a re-hash of the charges that we won on at CAS then why are they bothering to go down that road again? Smacks of desperation to me.

I thought this too. However the issue of the 2 x £15m Etisalat sponsorship monies paid to City by an Abu Dhabi financier, who was reimbursed by Etisalat in 2015, had already been discussed & settled with UEFA.

The Der Spiegel articles threw new light on UEFA's previous investigations, hence City retorting that the stolen emails were taken out of context.

UEFA found against us, & CAS threw the lot out on appeal, apart from the non-compliance with the investigation charge, for which we were fined £10m.

The PL have nothing new which hasn't been posed to us previously. ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠⊙⁠_⁠ʖ⁠⊙⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯