PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Chris in London]

Hypothetically, couldn't City just invite the SFO, HMRC & the police to look into these accusations with two intentions?

1. To prove we've not broken any UK Laws?

2. As a precursor to a possible defamation law suit?

I'd imagine if they found we'd not broken any UK Laws, this would pour a cold pail of putrid piss all over the PL's FFP/PSR breach allegations, making a public distinction between their private members club rules & UK Law.

Doubt it. It's not their job. You wouldn’t go to your local Nick and say “can you give me a certificate saying I’m not a crim." Proving a negative is notoriously difficult and I'm not sure that GMP or any other force would devote valuable resources to showing that no crimes had been committed. The best they could say, in any event, is that there is no evidence (or insufficient evidence) to show any crime has been committed.

I very much doubt as well that City would bring a libel claim arising out of these matters in any event. But even if they did, the absence of any criminal proceedings is rarely in itself sufficient to show there has been any libel because the allegation in a civil context has a lower standard of proof - ie Plod has to persuade a jury that it is beyond reasonable doubt that X committed an offence. If plod thinks it's more likely than not that X committed an offence, but it is unlikely that they would prove that to the criminal standard, charges would not be brought.

You have on a number of occasions likened the PL rules to the rules of a private members club, and if I may say so I don't think that the analogy is helpful. It is better if you think of the PL's rules as the terms of the contract between City and the PL. That is effectively what is at the heart of all this - an allegation we have breached the contract under which we compete in the PL. The reason this isn't proceeding in the civil courts is that the contract also provides for its own dispute resolution method, namely the independent panel. But that panel will also apply the laws of England generally (eg as regards limitation periods and the standard of proof) because that's what the contract also provides.

 

[argyle]

Hypothetically, couldn't City just invite the SFO, HMRC & the police to look into these accusations with two intentions?

1. To prove we've not broken any UK Laws?

2. As a precursor to a possible defamation law suit?

I'd imagine if they found we'd not broken any UK Laws, this would pour a cold pail of putrid piss all over the PL's FFP/PSR breach allegations, making a public distinction between their private members club rules & UK Law.

In this country you're innocent until proven guilty.

City don't have to prove they are innocent, it's for the PL to prove we are guilty.

 

[halfcenturyup]

In this country you're innocent until proven guilty.

City don't have to prove they are innocent, it's for the PL to prove we are guilty.

Also, I said on day one of all this that I couldn't believe the PL was so stupid as to effectively allege fraud after what we know about the CAS case and what we assume about the evidence the PL has. I also suggested that no authority would touch this case with a bargepole. That is still my view and, even if it wasn't, no entity in its right mind, personal or corporate, invites a criminal investigation from the authorities. Such investigation would involve ten investigators pouring over the club's accounting records for years in situ and every entity has various skeletons in various closets. Also, I would imagine they have the right to demand information from external parties, which the PL doesn't have. It would be madness.

We should all just relax and let this process take its course. Unless the club has actually done what was alleged, which is, firstly, extremely unlikely and, secondly, mindbogglingly difficult to prove anyway with the resources the PL has, everything will be fine.

 

[salfordbluetrue]

The funding of the sponsorships wasn't looked at in 2014. That was only looked at in 2019 after the der Spiegel leaks.

Pretty sure the funding was looked at when American airlines complained that our owners were state funding their aircraft in America, the leaks merely suggested this was the case.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Pretty sure the funding was looked at when American airlines complained that our owners were state funding their aircraft in America, the leaks merely suggested this was the case.

You have any links?

Edit: Not doubting you, but have never really followed that case.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

Pretty sure the funding was looked at when American airlines complained that our owners were state funding their aircraft in America, the leaks merely suggested this was the case.

Slight side note, but it's interesting how bankrolling an unprofitable business for years in search of market share is absolutely fine as long as it's a private billionaire or private equity firm doing it, but as soon as the state is doing the funding, it's suddenly an issue. Unless that private business happens to be a football club, of course.

 

[Skrastins]

Where are development that were said 2 weeks ago ?

 

[urban genie]

Hypothetically, couldn't City just invite the SFO, HMRC & the police to look into these accusations with two intentions?

1. To prove we've not broken any UK Laws?

2. As a precursor to a possible defamation law suit?

I'd imagine if they found we'd not broken any UK Laws, this would pour a cold pail of putrid piss all over the PL's FFP/PSR breach allegations, making a public distinction between their private members club rules & UK Law.

I Doubt it, we have been accused in an internal business matter between the Prem and one of its members, only if they can prrove guilt of fraud and wrong doing would/could it be passed on to authorities.

At present the HMRC, SFO and police are not accusing us of anything or feel need to investigate us for any wrong doing, that is up to the prem to prove, then they may get involved.

 

[ysmsa]

Slight side note, but it's interesting how bankrolling an unprofitable business for years in search of market share is absolutely fine as long as it's a private billionaire or private equity firm doing it, but as soon as the state is doing the funding, it's suddenly an issue. Unless that private business happens to be a football club, of course.

Now in really confused.

UK government provide billions in sweeteners to businesses all the time!

 

[Centurions]

Pretty sure the funding was looked at when American airlines complained that our owners were state funding their aircraft in America, the leaks merely suggested this was the case.

Our owners?


;)