PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Centurions]

Why haven't Der Speigel been prosecuted for colluding with a thief and falsifying documentation that was used as evidence in a court of law ?

The laws protecting journalists in Germany are much more robust than our own, I think they'd be terrified of going after them.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Every email has a similar statement contained within it.
This is from Barclays Bank today.

Is it just me that doesn't get this?

What don't you get?

 

[dickie davies]

And this story is three years old and since then Pinto has been found guilty of extortion, got a four years suspended jail sentence in Spain, a sixth-month suspended sentence in France, and has been charged with 377 more offences. I am not sure he would be a credible witness!

377!
He makes us look like amateurs with our poxy 115

 

[cheekybids]

The laws protecting journalists in Germany are much more robust than our own, I think they'd be terrified of going after them.

More than 1 way to skin a lying **** of an organisation.

 

[hello]

And this story is three years old and since then Pinto has been found guilty of extortion, got a four years suspended jail sentence in Spain, a sixth-month suspended sentence in France, and has been charged with 377 more offences. I am not sure he would be a credible witness!

stick him in a full dipper kit and a rag hoodie & arsenal will approve him being credible for PL purposes.

 

[Paladin]

This is why after being calm, then shitting myself, I'm back to being calm about the whole mess which is where I reckon I'll remain.

After watching your YouTube analysis, I couldn’t find anything earth-shattering or new to add to what UEFA didn't cover in 2014 or 2018, apart from the sentence taken out of context from a cache of stolen emails, which according to UK Law must be time barred?

The only confusing thing is whether the time bar starts from the date of the alleged offence, or from the date the offence was uncovered? UK Law isn't clear on this as there are caveats dependent of the severity of the charges.

Then there's the definition of "offence". What we're being charged with maybe an "offence" against the "rules" of the PL's private members club, BUT the charge itself isn't an "offence" in UK Law.

Seeing as the PL itself says its rules don't supercede UK Law, I'm even more lost as to where they're going with this & the UK statute of limitations issues? \0/

They are trying to prove concealment or fraud, in which events the Limitation Act would not apply.

 

[BackofJeanette]

What don't you get?

That an email is confidential so how can someone steal it and use it against you.
Why does every email have this confidentiality contained so therefore making it inadmissible?

 

[Dribble]

They are trying to prove concealment or fraud, in which events the Limitation Act would not apply.

It's not quite so straightforward. Looking at UK Law, extending the statute of limitations is based on the severity of the case, & judges have discretion over the merits.

We've submitted our annual returns which are a matter of public record, & we've had verified audits too.

The only thing the PL seem to have is the sentence in the stolen emails which mentions "His Highness" sourcing elements of our sponsorship agreements from third parties, so the funds show immediately for FFP purposes.

This all seems an unimaginable stretch by the PL. The only way to prove their accusations that ADUG paid Mohammed, who in turn paid City, is to get ADUG & Jaber Mohammed to open their books & provide bank statements.

Considering neither come under UEFA or the PL's jurisdiction, most organisations or individuals would tell em to go fuck themselves. ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠⊙⁠_⁠ʖ⁠⊙⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

 

[Brendan110_0]

They are trying to prove concealment or fraud, in which events the Limitation Act would not apply.

And they have ZERO witnesses to these alleged frauds. Not ex managers, support staff, tea lady, the likes of Garry Cook, Yaya Toure and Dimitri Seluk (who went on record saying there were no dodgy payments).

They have nothing, but will still find us guilty and kick us out of the league - who's going to stop them? No one.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

That an email is confidential so how can someone steal it and use it against you.
Why does every email have this confidentiality contained so therefore making it inadmissible?

The media would cite public interest as a reason and CAS, governed by Swiss Law, agreed.