Just for devilment given that this seems to revolve around the source of the funds given to City couldn't a similar argument be made against the dippers with Standard Chartered accused and convicted of money laundering?This is what you originally said:
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!
You are asking if the club would waive the rules which offer them certainly and protection and are agreed between them and the PL from the outset, in order that they can face sanctions in relation to other rules which were also agreed between them and the PL.But here is a question. If the panel decides some issues are time-barred, can the club waive the limitation in the interest of getting complete closure? Two questions, I suppose. Can they and would they?
You are asking if the club would waive the rules which offer them certainly and protection and are agreed between them and the PL from the outset, in order that they can face sanctions in relation to other rules which were also agreed between them and the PL.
It’s akin to agreeing to disapply the handball rule for our opponents in a game in order to prove we are the better team.
I feel that the limitations periods within the contract between City and the PL (and previously with UEFA) are viewed in some quarters (especially in the media) as something that is extraneous to that agreement, whereas they are a central part of it and the rules to which we are subject, as much as any FFP provisions. Anyone saying that the limitation is a technicality (or god forbid, ‘a loophole’) fails to appreciate that it is no more a technicality than the FFP rules themselves. It’s like distinguishing between the offside and handball laws and saying one is materially different from the other in terms of its place within the laws of the game. They both involve different considerations, structure and consequences, and one may be more liable to subjective interpretation than the other, but no one seriously suggests that a goal scored by misapplication of either of those laws is somehow more or less meritorious than the other.
Limitation is front and centre of this agreement and sets out the framework for enforcement of its rules. The club need not make any concessions or apologies for this. It’s as much a part of the rules (which City and all other clubs are subjest) as anything else in there.
Anyone pontificating about the application of those rules should be as supporting of upholding any provisions in relation to limitation as they are any in relation to FFP.
So no, they wouldn’t, and I don’t think they could, no.
As I have said before you're trying to disprove the charge against us and that's not the point here it's whether or not the Premier League charge implies accounting fraud which it does. I can't understand your arguments atall as evidence has nothing to do with it and being innocent or guilty of the crime is irrelevant here. Like others with a legal background has said this is an allegation of fraud we're dealing withThis is what you originally said:
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!
And you're not listening to the further dissection. Nobody's arguing that the PL aren't accusing us of fraud. What you're ignoring is City's likely responses based on the evidence we hold & the facts.As I have said before you're trying to disprove the charge against us and that's not the point here it's whether or not the Premier League charge implies accounting fraud which it does. I can't understand your arguments atall as evidence has nothing to do with it and being innocent or guilty of the crime is irrelevant here. Like others with a legal background has said this is an allegation of fraud we're dealing with
Exactly. Now let's see the PL demand to see Standard Chartered's books. ¯\_(⊙_ʖ⊙)_/¯Just for devilment given that this seems to revolve around the source of the funds given to City couldn't a similar argument be made against the dippers with Standard Chartered accused and convicted of money laundering?
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.
Here you goAnd you're not listening to the further dissection. Nobody's arguing that the PL aren't accusing us of fraud. What you're ignoring is City's likely responses based on the evidence we hold & the facts.
Is FFP fraud within the sphere of UEFA & the PL, the same as fraud in UK Law?
If yes, why aren't we being criminally charged?
Is it illegal for Person A to pay a bill for Person B in UK Law?
Is owner investment illegal in UK Law?
These facets make up the basis of UEFA & the PL's FFP breaches against us.
Like I said, it's transparent bullshit. They introduced FFP to stop City. City found legal ways to circumnavigate FFP, & even now after we traversed our way through it, they want to hammer us because they believe one sentence from a stolen email mentions an HRH sourcing a third party bridging loan to pay the Etisalat sponsorship deal.
This is their case & their evidence. Me pointing this out & the pitfalls on BOTH sides, doesn't mean I'm denying the PL are essentially coming after us for accounting fraud. I'm merely highlighting they have zero other evidence for this accusation outside of the stolen email.
On the other side, if Etisalat arranged the third party Jaber Mohammed bridging loan, was interest paid on it? I assume this is also what the PL & UEFA are looking into, but City seem confident, everything's in order.
Listen to this fella too, he knows his stuff.Listen to this fella he knows his stuff.
1. So why haven't the UK authorities been called in to investigate us for fraud?Here you go
1. Is FFP fraud within the sphere of UEFA & the PL, the same as fraud in UK Law? Nothing to do with FFP it is accounting fraud That trumps everything here.
2. If yes, why aren't we being criminally charged? Because it's unwinnable given all of our evidence which says a lot About the Premier Leagues case.
3. Is it illegal for Person A to pay a bill for Person B in UK Law? If Person B is actually Person A but recorded it as Person B then yes it is
4. Is owner investment illegal in UK Law?
No but it has to recorded as equity funding not revenue otherwise it will be accounting fraud
All of the above is the reason the Premier League accusing City of accounting fraud