gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
The PL are absolutely implying fraud with the charges. It is intrinsic to them. There is no other logical conclusion to draw.
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
Stoned Rose
Well-Known Member
Top liberties when we then went and won both UEFA and the PL’s competitions. In the same season.Joking aside, I quote this from the last time I got blasted:
Stoned Rose
Well-Known Member
Listen to this fella he knows his stuff.The PL are absolutely implying fraud with the charges. It is intrinsic to them. There is no other logical conclusion to draw.
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
I agree with this poster.Listen to this fella he knows his stuff.
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 12,128
The PL are absolutely implying fraud with the charges. It is intrinsic to them. There is no other logical conclusion to draw.
This has been discussed in this thread many times over the last ten months and each time, everybody with a legal background has said this about the alleged breaches. Even an old accountant like me knows when to take legal opinions seriously. Much as I hate to admit it. :)
Dribble
Well-Known Member
Even then you still seem to struggle with the basics mate. \0/Personally, I prefer to listen to the lawyers on here on what is and isn't against the law.
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 12,128
Even then you still seem to struggle with the basics mate. \0/
:) I don't think it matters anyway. They won't be able to prove anything conclusive against the evidence the club will provide.
Chris in London
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 13,340
Let me try.
(Again.)
The relationship between City and the PL is essentially contractual. One of the terms of that contract is that any disputes will be referred to an independent panel for determination. One of the other provisions is that we will provide accurate accounts.
The claim against City is that we have breached this contract. The way in which we are said to have breached it is serious, and is an allegation of criminal conduct. But the forum in which this dispute will be resolved is that provided for in the contract, and the contract is expressly subject to English law.
This has certain consequence.
One is that English law applies to questions of limitation. Note that an allegation of criminality does not change the limitation period, because, to repeat, the dispute between City and the PL is at its heart a claim of breach of contract. So the rules that say serious charges (like murder or fraud) have no limitation period is inapplicable because this is a civil case (albeit one that includes allegations of fraud.) To put the same point another way, the allegation of criminality does not lift this dispute out of the realms of civil claims.
So, as Petrushka has (repeatedly) argued (correctly) the general 6 year limitation period applies, with the proviso that the fraudulent concealment of the breach would mean that the six year period would only begin once the fraud is discovered.
Maybe this particular groundhog can now be laid to rest.
(Again.)
The relationship between City and the PL is essentially contractual. One of the terms of that contract is that any disputes will be referred to an independent panel for determination. One of the other provisions is that we will provide accurate accounts.
The claim against City is that we have breached this contract. The way in which we are said to have breached it is serious, and is an allegation of criminal conduct. But the forum in which this dispute will be resolved is that provided for in the contract, and the contract is expressly subject to English law.
This has certain consequence.
One is that English law applies to questions of limitation. Note that an allegation of criminality does not change the limitation period, because, to repeat, the dispute between City and the PL is at its heart a claim of breach of contract. So the rules that say serious charges (like murder or fraud) have no limitation period is inapplicable because this is a civil case (albeit one that includes allegations of fraud.) To put the same point another way, the allegation of criminality does not lift this dispute out of the realms of civil claims.
So, as Petrushka has (repeatedly) argued (correctly) the general 6 year limitation period applies, with the proviso that the fraudulent concealment of the breach would mean that the six year period would only begin once the fraud is discovered.
Maybe this particular groundhog can now be laid to rest.
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 12,128
Let me try.
(Again.)
The relationship between City and the PL is essentially contractual. One of the terms of that contract is that any disputes will be referred to an independent panel for determination. One of the other provisions is that we will provide accurate accounts.
The claim against City is that we have breached this contract. The way in which we are said to have breached it is serious, and is an allegation of criminal conduct. But the forum in which this dispute will be resolved is that provided for in the contract, and the contract is expressly subject to English law.
This has certain consequence.
One is that English law applies to questions of limitation. Note that an allegation of criminality does not change the limitation period, because, to repeat, the dispute between City and the PL is at its heart a claim of breach of contract. So the rules that say serious charges (like murder or fraud) have no limitation period is inapplicable because this is a civil case (albeit one that includes allegations of fraud.) To put the same point another way, the allegation of criminality does not lift this dispute out of the realms of civil claims.
So, as Petrushka has (repeatedly) argued (correctly) the general 6 year limitation period applies, with the proviso that the fraudulent concealment of the breach would mean that the six year period would only begin once the fraud is discovered.
Maybe this particular groundhog can now be laid to rest.
Well yes, but are they actually charging the club with fraud?
:) Happy New Year, btw.
Dribble
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure what your argument angle is here. It's like you're trying to prove we didn't do it when we're actually talking about what the Premier League are implying by charging us in the first place. The Premier League are accusing us of committing accounting fraud with the charges. The second paragraph in the statement you wrote above even says exactly that.
This is what you originally said:
I keep repeating myself but city are accused of overstating revenue which is accounting fraud and is illegal in all countries including the UK for good reasons
As others have pointed out to you, City & Etisalat had a valid sponsorship agreement. However a UAE based financier Jaber Mohammed paid £15m in 2012 & 2013 to Manchester City, in respect to the Etisalat sponsorship agreement.
Etisalat used Jaber Mohammed's financial services as a bridging loans to pay City.
Everything was fine until a sentence in a stolen email which alludes to a City employee asking another employee to see if HRH could source third party finance to cover a portion of Etisalat's payments. Enter Jaber Mohammed.
There's no evidence from what I'm aware that this email was acted upon by HRH. Also, it's reasonable to assume because Etisalat repaid the £30m to Jaber Mohammed & these transactions appeared in their accounts, it should be case closed, but no.
UEFA & the PL are STILL wanting to haul us over the coals, not because we've committed a crime, it's because they believe we found a way to traverse our way around their FFP which they introduced to cripple us, & other ambitious clubs like us from the beginning.
I'd be more arsed about your argument, if UEFA & the PL were the honest actors they make themselves out to be. They're not. It's a fight they started, & are seemingly willing to keep on fighting to quench the hatred the G14 & Hateful Eight have for City.
They've zero case in UK Law, & only a case when their private members rules are applied, so Fuck em!