PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Tevez City]

10 years

 

[billymumphrey]

Getting away with it (All messed up)

 

[Norbiton]

Nick Harris is quoting an email which pretty much says “We’re obeying the rules with this 14-year old player, let’s make sure we continue to” and treats it as though it’s a smoking gun. If that’s the best the Premier League has I don’t think we have much to worry about

 

[Coatigan]

The 2009-12 issues are not really FFP-related, they mostly seem to be allegations about the validity of the accounts - especially the exact source of some sponsorship money, implying disguised owner investment by Sheikh Mansour - plus Mancini's "second contract".

That is true, and I get that. But hospoint stands. Why would it matter? There were no limits at that point, no reason to disguise investment, and no consequences for investing loads.

 

[eastmanc]

He doesn't listen. Too busy trying to get his 2 penneth in. Hence getting it wrong, yet again, on whether Stefan had said subjective or objective.

He's an arrogant man who loves the sound of own voice who.in reality nearly bankrupted his club, Crystal Palace.

 

[Coatigan]

This is a very important point. We all argue in here about whether the charges are about fraud or not (spoiler: effectively, they definitely are) but we should welcome the accusation. I remember @petrusha telling me in a previous blasting (and he was right of course) that the PL now has to own that allegation and prove with much more cogent evidence than it would have had to if we were just accused of some normal rule breaches. Or more humanly, the panel will be thinkng "are we really going to find these people guilty of fraud on this evidence?". I get that @projectriver has to be balanced when he is before the press for professional reasons, but I don't :) It isn't going to happen. Full stop.

You know, I do fully get the logic of this. Not just @projectriver, but one or two more have claimed this from the start. I accept that is the principle in law, and they understand law and are stating it from an informed position. And everyone here has accepted that, including me.

Do we know though, that it definitely applies here however, in a PL internal investigation? Beyond just the assumption that because it is in law and the PL would have to act within UK law.

Do they Have to have the same level of burden of proof, the high threshold described. Do they have to categorically prove that so many people deliberately colluded to commit fraud over a decade.

Or is, within the context of an internal investigation of a member club, the threshold less, i.e concluding from our books alone that they arent to the league rules and expectations. As would seem to have happened in the investigation that has led to the charges. What is it that makes the 'burden of proof' discussed definitely apply to the PL regulatory body?

 

[mancboy]

You know, I do fully get the logic of this. Not just @projectriver, but one or two more have claimed this from the start. I accept that is the principle in law, and they understand law and are stating it from an informed position. And everyone here has accepted that, including me.

Do we know though, that it definitely applies here however, in a PL internal investigation? Beyond just the assumption that because it is in law and the PL would have to act within UK law.

Do they Have to have the same level of burden of proof, the high threshold described. Do they have to categorically prove that so many people deliberately colluded to commit fraud over a decade.

Or is, within the context of an internal investigation of a member club, the threshold less, i.e concluding from our books alone that they arent to the league rules and expectations. As would seem to have happened in the investigation that has led to the charges. What is it that makes the 'burden of proof' discussed definitely apply to the PL regulatory body?

if they didnt have to apply within the rules of law then why would either side bother employing a qc or legal representation, the pl could just say what we say goes and what you say doesnt mean anything and would therefore be a dictatorship

 

[petrusha]

Do we know though, that [the law] definitely applies here however, in a PL internal investigation?

There's an express provision in the PL's Rules (Rule A.7., IIRC) that the PL's Rules are "governed by and construed in accordance with English law". So, yes, we know.

 

[Blue Maverick]

Nick Harris is going to top himself when we win, the guy has serious issues.

 

[wolviedinho]

Let’s just say hypothetically that Mansour & Khaldoon wanted to disguise owner investment for a min. You would think that to carry out such a criminal act, both men would keep it in house. By that I mean, not erm tell anyone. Including Soriano, Pearce etc. Instead, apparently everyone knew and not 1 of those people has come forward to expose the crime of the century.

It’s just bugs me as to why the top man would share his criminal plan to anyone?