For a start, this bit:
So in the space of two paragraphs in the same post, you managed to completely misrepresent how the 1980 Limitation Act and the 1968 Theft Act are applicable to the PL's case against City. Way to go.
There are more, including many irrelevant analogies that completely miss the point, and quite frankly, I haven't got the strength. Also, I have already abandoned my New Year's resolution not to engage with you on any legal issues. On the first day, already.
Happy New Year by the way. All Blues should have a great year even if we disagree on almost everything. :)
I honestly believe you're being purposely obtuse. I stated:
Essentially, what City are accused of isn't even illegal in UK Law, only in the PL's rules which they state are governed by UK Law.
Let me walk you through it... "Essentially, what City are accused of isn't even illegal in UK Law".
To my knowledge, the substantive charge is that they believe the "His Highness" mentioned in the stolen emails is Sheikh Mansour, & that he funneled equity funding through a bridging loan awarded to Etisalat from Jaber Mohammed, to Manchester City, disguised as Etisalat sponsorship.
Outside of the stolen emails & in terms of evidence, they've produced squat.
As I've previously stated, it doesn't matter what UEFA/PL accuse us of, proving it is a totally different matter.
Then I pointed out to you, is owner equity funding illegal in UK Law? No.
Is it illegal to pay an invoice on behalf of a third party? No.
Even if we did disguise owner equity funding as Etisalat sponsorship, would we have had to do this if UEFA hadn't introduce FFP as a blatant mechanism to stop City? No.
Again, you've introduced several frankly ridiculous episodes of hair splitting, I presume in an attempt to remain relevant in this conversation eg: If SM gave City equity funding, but we entered it into the ledger as sponsorship for another company, that's fraud?
I suppose technically yes, but there's a few problems your hair splitting has thrown up.
1. If not for FFP, why would SM need to disguise his owner equity funding in the first place? If he owned ANY other business in the UK, would this even be an issue?
2. Did Manchester City have a legal sponsorship contract with Etisalat, & did we discharged our duties to Etisalat as contracted?
You keep getting yourself hung up on what's in front of you, without considering the vast majority of the issues lies beyond the murky facade.
Again, UEFA/G14 can accuse us of what they like.
A. We had a sponsorship contract with Etisalat.
B. City issued an invoice with payment terms
C. Etisalat paid part of the invoice by using a third party bridging loan facility provided by UAE based financier, Jaber Mohammed.
D. City's invoice & payment terms were satisfied.
E. City carry out the sponsorship service for Etisalat in accordance with the contract.
F. City got paid. Etisalat got their service. The end!
I'm well aware of what UEFA & the PL are accusing City of in accordance to THEIR private members club rules, but as per the above A - F, where's the fraud?
And to sum up, what the PL & UEFA are alleging doesn't stack up because there was a sponsorship deal in place with Etisalat, so their only squabble is did Sheikh Mansour disguise equity funding as Etisalat sponsorship against their private members club rules?
City say no, & have the contracts & bank transfers to prove it.
Now perhaps you will finally accept, it matters little what UEFA/PL accuse us of. It doesn't stack up in UK Law, & if not for FFP (which has zero bearing in UK criminal Law & is only applicable in civil law based on breach of contract, which they so far don't have a hope in hell of proving), would we even need to be creative with our accounting?
I think it best for all that you re-avow your New Year Resolution, & go find something more productive to occupy yourself with. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
