PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

halfcenturyup said:
It's pretty clear. This is a civil case. The panel doesn't have to conclude that there was any criminal conduct. They just have to decide whether or not, on the balance of probabilities, the club breached its contract with the PL to provide accounts that give a true and fair view of the club's activities. There is no doubt the panel has competence to do that.

Where are I agree with you, though, is in two areas: firstly, if there is a decision that upholds the PL's position on the balance of probabilities, then there is the inference of criminality, but this is dealt with by the need for higher levels of cogency to come to that conclusion and, even then, it would not be, in any way, a criminal conviction; secondly, to determine if any of the alleged breaches are time-barred, the panel will have to directly address the question of fraud or concealment. If they are not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that there was fraud or concealment, then the majority of the charges are time-barred. If they are satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that there was fraud or concealment regarding any of the alleged breaches, then those breaches are not time-barred even if older than 6 years. If I was on the panel, I would be pushing to not consider the time-barred aspect unless any of the alleged breaches are actually found in favour of the PL, effectively kicking that particular can of worms down the road, as it were. This would suit the club, I think, because they would much rather the panel finds against the PL on each charge, than have the majority of the charges time-barred again, I imagine.

I have no idea how the PL intends to prove fraud and concealment, though, which is why almost everyone (who knows what they are talking about) thinks they have over-reached, and once the club presents its third party evidence on each of the alleged breaches, in my opinion, after a great deal of expensive umming and arring, that will be that, especially given the profile of the case, the need for cogency and the risks to a large number of reputations on all sides of coming to an unfortunate conclusion.

I have presented a scenario to explain all this (the PL apparently over-reaching, the PL complaining about the club's lack of cooperation and bad faith, the club insisting it has cooperated etc..) which I think makes sense, but we will have to wait and see. The more I think about it, the more I am convinced the club's position is just fine.
Click to expand...
I think we will be able to get the big hitters and third parties to turn up and blow the PL out the water. We did it at CAS we can do it again. I know it was reported that a lot to time in my mind anyway was being spent on getting statements and I imagine key people from sponsors be prepared to turn up in person if needed and of course everyone from city only person I assume who won’t turn up is Sheik
 
SilverFox2 said:
Sounds OK to me.

We fight pedantic 115 fire with extruded pedantic fire.
In the meantime we shrug off perpetual media bias and get on with winning trophies. At the same time we watch our enemies spend to compete but dangerously close to breaking not only FFP but also Mr Macawbers advice.
Click to expand...
The Glazers overspending by sixpence = misery. Love it.
 
WRicko said:
I don’t want to repeat myself but I don’t see how the panel can rule on matters outside it jurisdiction or on which affect its jurisdiction but for which it cannot possibly investigate e.g involving third parties outside its jurisdiction for which it cannot gain the evidence it requires or on rules under its jurisdiction but if those rules where broken criminal activity would have had to have taken place and it cannot rule if that activity had taken place so cannot rule on its own rules.

No one has explained this to me yet.

Now I have heard it said that we have already challenged to panels jurisdiction and lost but I am not sure that covers what I am saying the below seems to say that we challenged the right for the public to know the bias and the right of the pane to rule on matters outside of the rules of the game section w of the Premier League rules that’s surely things related to on pitch matters not FFP see the bottom link to the Premier League rules


The articles I can see only focus on privacy and bias

Court ruling shows Premier League still investigating Manchester City over FFP | Manchester City | The Guardian

Manchester City strongly deny wrongdoing regarding financial fair play, which the Premier League started to investigate in March 2019
amp.theguardian.com amp.theguardian.com


Click to expand...
I fully understand your specific point, & you're correct.

Essentially, what jurisdiction does UEFA or the PL have outside of their organisations to compel ADUG, Etisalat or Jaber Mohammed to open their books & provide bank statements to football's governing bodies?

At this very juncture, UEFA & the PL's cases should fall on their arse, because their charges become mere suppositions based on a sentence in a stolen email, which City claim was spliced together to give an egregious interpretation of the facts.

This is why City contend the emails in isolation, were taken out of context.
 
SilverFox2 said:
Sounds OK to me.

We fight pedantic 115 fire with extruded pedantic fire.
In the meantime we shrug off perpetual media bias and get on with winning trophies. At the same time we watch our enemies spend to compete but dangerously close to breaking not only FFP but also Mr Macawbers advice.
Click to expand...
 
Centurions said:
They weren't 'falsified' though were they? Two were combined to make it sound worse than it was but I don't think the wording was altered?

Regardless, it's all political bollocks and I'm still not even faintly stressed.
Click to expand...
At least one of the email copies was fabricated by merging two together. This was stated in CAS but not reported by any mainstream media as far as I know. That says everything.
 
WRicko said:
Seems to me that the Premier League depending on there mood could make very unreasonable demands should they choose to do for example demand that we have the head of Nissan give evidence in person and provide bank statement and then choose to or not to for example with regards to United and there noodle partner the whole thing stinks. We cannot make unrelated third party sponsors give evidence etc we are not court police force etc they have no reason to do so other than to help someone they sponsors out and any tangential positive for their marketing.
Click to expand...

Bank statements again. You guys.

They can't make unreasonable demands but I suppose they could ask for some confirmation from third parties that what the club says is true. After all, in City's case, the PL knows we provided such information at CAS, so withholding it this time could be seen as non-cooperation. The club ignoring such requests because they weren't provided for in the rules (historically) and preferring to give third party evidence after we have been charged is my guess at what has happened, and why the club has been charged with non-cooperation and acting in bad faith.
 
halfcenturyup said:
"The obligation above means that those bound by the Rules must not only answer questions, provide information and provide documents when requested to do so, but also that, for example (and without limitation), they must not delay at all in doing so, they must do so comprehensively, and they must do soon a co-operative and open basis, which includes volunteering relevant information and documents unknown to the Board, obtaining such information and documents from other parties when able to do so, and ensuring that the appropriate individuals are made available for questioning by the Board."

Now read what I said again in relation to that guidance.
Click to expand...

if this is what it says then to me it reads like

1) try to get some information from a 3rd party but if you fail to do so then fine.
2) make sure any MCFC staff are available for questioning.

I doubt we fail on any of those points.
 
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
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.