halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 9,820
Personally, I prefer to listen to the lawyers on here on what is and isn't against the law.
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
Personally, I prefer to listen to the lawyers on here on what is and isn't against the law.
BerkshireBlue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 19 Jan 2015
- Messages
- 3,502
Mate, we had a sponsorship agreement with Etisalat. We discharged our responsibilities in respect to that agreement, so where's the fraud?
What the PL & UEFA are contending is HRH funneled £30m in two payments in 2012 & 2013 to Jaber Mohammed, who then paid City on Etisalat's behalf.
Evennif this were the case, again, no crime has been committed, BUT UEFA & the PL believe their private members club 'rules' have been breached. This is the case we face. \0/
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.
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.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.
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
- 9,820
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
- 9,820
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
- 13,060
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.