PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Chris in London]

This is partly what underpins my belief that the charges, when we finally get to see the verdict and the details behind them, aren't as serious as is being made out.

But the charges ARE serious. They are massively serious. They are allegations that, if proved, would amount to fradulent conduct and criminal conspiracy involving high level officials at a number of high-level companies. They are some of the most serious accusations ever made against the directors of a professional football club.

What we don't know, and won't know until the panel's findings are released, is the evidence in support of those charges. We know some of it, of course, and that part we do know is one of the reasons why many posters (myself included) have been skeptical about the extent to which the PL has brought these accusations in good faith. To give one example with which you are familiar, one of the charges is knowingly failing to provide true accounts to the PL, where the accusation appears to be that we have failed to report what is actually owner investment and have instead dressed it up as sponsorship from Etihad. First, MCFC's audited accounts say otherwise, secondly Etihad's audited accounts say otherwise, thirdly, CAS says otherwise, fourthly the witnesses at CAS (including Sheikh Mansour) say otherwise, and finally the evidence in the Open Skies case in the US says otherwise.

Against that, we just don't know what further evidence the PL has presented to the disciplinary panel. I personally would not be surprised if the answer is that they don't have anything more than that, and that the evidence may well turn out to be that the PL had nothing more than the Der Spiegel emails. But it is important to distinguish between the seriousness of the accusations and the flimsiness of the evidence supporting those accusations.

A charge of attempted murder is a serious matter even if the only evidence against the accused is that they threw a rotten tomato.

Of course, it may well be that if (as we all hope) the charges are dismissed, a conversation will follow as to why the PL brought serious charges on the basis of flimsy evidence. Allied to that is the separate conversation of why the PL brought so many charges over such an extended period. One possible explanation is that they were keen - and we can speculate on their reasons for this - to charge City with as many things as they could in the hope of making something stick.

But for the time being, we are all still guessing.

 

[r.soleofsalford]

But the charges ARE serious. They are massively serious. They are allegations that, if proved, would amount to fradulent conduct and criminal conspiracy involving high level officials at a number of high-level companies. They are some of the most serious accusations ever made against the directors of a professional football club.

What we don't know, and won't know until the panel's findings are released, is the evidence in support of those charges. We know some of it, of course, and that part we do know is one of the reasons why many posters (myself included) have been skeptical about the extent to which the PL has brought these accusations in good faith. To give one example with which you are familiar, one of the charges is knowingly failing to provide true accounts to the PL, where the accusation appears to be that we have failed to report what is actually owner investment and have instead dressed it up as sponsorship from Etihad. First, MCFC's audited accounts say otherwise, secondly Etihad's audited accounts say otherwise, thirdly, CAS says otherwise, fourthly the witnesses at CAS (including Sheikh Mansour) say otherwise, and finally the evidence in the Open Skies case in the US says otherwise.

Against that, we just don't know what further evidence the PL has presented to the disciplinary panel. I personally would not be surprised if the answer is that they don't have anything more than that, and that the evidence may well turn out to be that the PL had nothing more than the Der Spiegel emails. But it is important to distinguish between the seriousness of the accusations and the flimsiness of the evidence supporting those accusations.

A charge of attempted murder is a serious matter even if the only evidence against the accused is that they threw a rotten tomato.

Of course, it may well be that if (as we all hope) the charges are dismissed, a conversation will follow as to why the PL brought serious charges on the basis of flimsy evidence. Allied to that is the separate conversation of why the PL brought so many charges over such an extended period. One possible explanation is that they were keen - and we can speculate on their reasons for this - to charge City with as many things as they could in the hope of making something stick.

But for the time being, we are all still INNOCENT.

 

[mexico1970]

Never ever forget this people.

 

[Moss Side's Finest]

This entire thread has gone around in circles covering the same subject more times than Haaland has scored goals

 

[Cobwebcat]

As always, I agree with everyone :)

I agree with you that, in the sense that the PL has little likelihood of any significant success, the allegations aren't particularly serious. I have made that point many times on here and I have no qualms about repeating it now. I am very relaxed about it.

But that doesn't mean I can't accept that the allegations themselves are very, very serious. A point I am sure we will see will have been one of the very first on which the club agreed with the PL and the members of the panel when we finally see the judgment.

They’re arguing about two different ways of saying the same thing.

PB doesn’t regard the charges as being serious because of their chance of sccceeding is slim.

Stefan separates the two and says the charges themselves are very serious. He then adds they will be difficult for the PL to prove.

They can both be correct as you point out. The strange thing is that neither party seem to realise it.

If I called you a Murderer and my proof was that I just think you might be…..

PB would say that isn’t a serious accusation because it’s silly. Stefan would say an accusation of murder is a serious because it’s a serious crime.

 

[Gone for a Burton]

I reckon the PL has given it a good go in terms of nailing us with any evidence of a serious breach that it can muster. It's spent an awful lot of money, time and effort as it's tried to do so.

I think it may well emerge that the PL has overstretched itself in that attempt. And I certainly don't regard it as a competently led organisation that invariably acts in good faith. The more we see of it, the less it looks that way.

But we just don't know what evidence they've been putting forward. I find it difficult to see what evidence they could possibly have to make any serious charges out to the necessary standard of proof.

However, remember the length of time the hearing took. That suggests them case involved a bit more than just suggesting that the panel just look at the emails because everything would then be obvious.

None of that means I think it will be shown that the PL was justified in bringing most of the accusations. I think there's a good possibility otherwise, but at present I'm guessing when I say that.

PL wouldn't recognise good faith if it bit their leg.

They have acted duplicitously and in bad faith by launching a case about us under instruction from the red yank cabal.

They will reap the whirlwind from hell shortly !!

 

[Stoned Rose]

I reckon the PL has given it a good go in terms of nailing us with any evidence of a serious breach that it can muster. It's spent an awful lot of money, time and effort as it's tried to do so.

I think it may well emerge that the PL has overstretched itself in that attempt. And I certainly don't regard it as a competently led organisation that invariably acts in good faith. The more we see of it, the less it looks that way.

But we just don't know what evidence they've been putting forward. I find it difficult to see what evidence they could possibly have to make any serious charges out to the necessary standard of proof.

However, remember the length of time the hearing took. That suggests them case involved a bit more than just suggesting that the panel just look at the emails because everything would then be obvious.

None of that means I think it will be shown that the PL was justified in bringing most of the accusations. I think there's a good possibility otherwise, but at present I'm guessing when I say that.

Love it when Petrusha goes all Jamaican for no reason.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

But the charges ARE serious. They are massively serious. They are allegations that, if proved, would amount to fradulent conduct and criminal conspiracy involving high level officials at a number of high-level companies. They are some of the most serious accusations ever made against the directors of a professional football club.

What we don't know, and won't know until the panel's findings are released, is the evidence in support of those charges. We know some of it, of course, and that part we do know is one of the reasons why many posters (myself included) have been skeptical about the extent to which the PL has brought these accusations in good faith. To give one example with which you are familiar, one of the charges is knowingly failing to provide true accounts to the PL, where the accusation appears to be that we have failed to report what is actually owner investment and have instead dressed it up as sponsorship from Etihad. First, MCFC's audited accounts say otherwise, secondly Etihad's audited accounts say otherwise, thirdly, CAS says otherwise, fourthly the witnesses at CAS (including Sheikh Mansour) say otherwise, and finally the evidence in the Open Skies case in the US says otherwise.

Against that, we just don't know what further evidence the PL has presented to the disciplinary panel. I personally would not be surprised if the answer is that they don't have anything more than that, and that the evidence may well turn out to be that the PL had nothing more than the Der Spiegel emails. But it is important to distinguish between the seriousness of the accusations and the flimsiness of the evidence supporting those accusations.

A charge of attempted murder is a serious matter even if the only evidence against the accused is that they threw a rotten tomato.

Of course, it may well be that if (as we all hope) the charges are dismissed, a conversation will follow as to why the PL brought serious charges on the basis of flimsy evidence. Allied to that is the separate conversation of why the PL brought so many charges over such an extended period. One possible explanation is that they were keen - and we can speculate on their reasons for this - to charge City with as many things as they could in the hope of making something stick.

But for the time being, we are all still guessing.

I do agree that they've been framed to appear serious and I suspect that's part of the point. We don't really know in detail what the specifics of the charges are though. However we know enough to be able to deduce some things.

The first group are presumably about the Abu Dhabi sponsorships. The largest of these was covered by the CAS hearing and they were dismissed. The Etihad sponsorship was found to be entirely legitimate and not disguised equity investment. If the PL had evidence that we'd lied about this and deliberately concealed this fact then we would certainly be in big trouble. But from the little I've heard we've presented exactly the same evidence to the IC that we did to CAS. We don't know what the PL has of course but I'm confident they don't have a smoking gun. So it sounds like a rerun of CAS and the result will almost certainly be the same.

As I've said on multiple occasions the words 'related parties' form part of that first group and this is the first attempt to properly test the claim that Etihad etc are related parties. But even if they are found to be (and they aren't) so what? That makes zero difference to our financial position. The worst case scenario is that we'd be guilty of misreporting these agreements when we genuinely believed they weren't.

The Mancini stuff is a complete irrelevance and Fordham hardly more so. And even if the Fordham charges were proven then I doubt they would have impacted our FFP position anyway.

As my colleague said to me the other day about something at work "It's all bollocks Colin". And they were right.

As someone on here memorably said 'the process is the punishment'. And they were right as well.

 

[malg]

I've had two news stories today telling me we're getting a two year transfer ban, which given our current squad would be worse than relegation and this one.......looks like we're fucked as I'm sure Football365 is quite reputable......

 

[dadnlad]

So big game weekend hows BBC clear and obvious 4 part exposay going

 

[birchwoodgingerste]

I've had two news stories today telling me we're getting a two year transfer ban, which given our current squad would be worse than relegation and this one.......looks like we're fucked as I'm sure Football365 is quite reputable......

View attachment 147527

Big game sunday do the maths!

 

[Boris Yeltsin]

I've had two news stories today telling me we're getting a two year transfer ban, which given our current squad would be worse than relegation and this one.......looks like we're fucked as I'm sure Football365 is quite reputable......

View attachment 147527

Football365 - quite reputable - you are taking the piss right?

 

[CC1]

I've had two news stories today telling me we're getting a two year transfer ban, which given our current squad would be worse than relegation and this one.......looks like we're fucked as I'm sure Football365 is quite reputable......

View attachment 147527

From what I’ve read by reputable lawyers, a transfer ban in not an option for PL. But if you take note of click baiters like this then I give up

 

[moomba]

I've had two news stories today telling me we're getting a two year transfer ban, which given our current squad would be worse than relegation and this one.......looks like we're fucked as I'm sure Football365 is quite reputable......

View attachment 147527

Football365 put out a different exclusive, detailing a different punishment (never a win for us) most days. Pure clickbait.

Them, Goal, Football Insider are all pathetic.

 

[GornikDaze]

I've had two news stories today telling me we're getting a two year transfer ban, which given our current squad would be worse than relegation and this one.......looks like we're fucked as I'm sure Football365 is quite reputable......

View attachment 147527

You’ve caught a couple already ;)

 

[Chris in London]

I do agree that they've been framed to appear serious and I suspect that's part of the point. We don't really know in detail what the specifics of the charges are though. However we know enough to be able to deduce some things.

The first group are presumably about the Abu Dhabi sponsorships. The largest of these was covered by the CAS hearing and they were dismissed. The Etihad sponsorship was found to be entirely legitimate and not disguised equity investment. If the PL had evidence that we'd lied about this and deliberately concealed this fact then we would certainly be in big trouble. But from the little I've heard we've presented exactly the same evidence to the IC that we did to CAS. We don't know what the PL has of course but I'm confident they don't have a smoking gun. So it sounds like a rerun of CAS and the result will almost certainly be the same.

As I've said on multiple occasions the words 'related parties' form part of that first group and this is the first attempt to properly test the claim that Etihad etc are related parties. But even if they are found to be (and they aren't) so what? That makes zero difference to our financial position. The worst case scenario is that we'd be guilty of misreporting these agreements when we genuinely believed they weren't.

The Mancini stuff is a complete irrelevance and Fordham hardly more so. And even if the Fordham charges were proven then I doubt they would have impacted our FFP position anyway.

As my colleague said to me the other day about something at work "It's all bollocks Colin". And they were right.

As someone on here memorably said 'the process is the punishment'. And they were right as well.

I don't disagree with any of that except the first line.

The charges don't appear serious, they are serious. The F365 headline on p8367 illustrates the point neatly. What has been alleged IS corporate fraud. The evidence relied on in support of those allegations may well turn out to be a pile of horseshit, and from what we know of it it IS a pile of horseshit, but that doesn't make it any less serious an allegation.

The Mancini stuff is a good example. So far as we can tell, he had a contract with us and a contract with Al Jazeera for some consulting. The allegation is that this was actually City paying Mancini some disguised remuneration beyond that stated in the accounts.

To make that allegation stick the PL would have to show that Mancini and City AND Al Jazeera all conspired and colluded to agree to contracts that all three knew were shams - "sham" in the technical legal sense, meaning something that ALL the parties knew was untrue. That, again, is tantamount to an allegation of fraud.

Forget the fact that there's no obvious reason for the club to have done so, forget the fact that there seems to be bugger all evidence to support that allegation, forget the fact that it's essentially impossible to prove that without putting that very serious allegation not only to City but also to Al Jazeera and to Mancini himself in the witness box, it is a very serious accusation. The charge involves an allegation that a dishonest and unlawful conspiracy was entered into and carried out by MCFC, Mancini and Al Jazeera. It doesn't matter if there's fuck all evidence to support the charge, the charge is serious.

You may well be proved entirely right that the process is the punishment, and the fact that the PL might have embarked upon very serious charges with very little prospect of success may beg further questions, but the seriousness of the charges is defined by what is alleged, not by the evidence that is relied on.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

I don't disagree with any of that except the first line.

The charges don't appear serious, they are serious. The F365 headline on p8367 illustrates the point neatly. What has been alleged IS corporate fraud. The evidence relied on in support of those allegations may well turn out to be a pile of horseshit, and from what we know of it it IS a pile of horseshit, but that doesn't make it any less serious an allegation.

The Mancini stuff is a good example. So far as we can tell, he had a contract with us and a contract with Al Jazeera for some consulting. The allegation is that this was actually City paying Mancini some disguised remuneration beyond that stated in the accounts.

To make that allegation stick the PL would have to show that Mancini and City AND Al Jazeera all conspired and colluded to agree to contracts that all three knew were shams - "sham" in the technical legal sense, meaning something that ALL the parties knew was untrue. That, again, is tantamount to an allegation of fraud.

Forget the fact that there's no obvious reason for the club to have done so, forget the fact that there seems to be bugger all evidence to support that allegation, forget the fact that it's essentially impossible to prove that without putting that very serious allegation not only to City but also to Al Jazeera and to Mancini himself in the witness box, it is a very serious accusation. The charge involves an allegation that a dishonest and unlawful conspiracy was entered into and carried out by MCFC, Mancini and Al Jazeera. It doesn't matter if there's fuck all evidence to support the charge, the charge is serious.

You may well be proved entirely right that the process is the punishment, and the fact that the PL might have embarked upon very serious charges with very little prospect of success may beg further questions, but the seriousness of the charges is defined by what is alleged, not by the evidence that is relied on.

If they want to go down the fraud route, then there should be scrutiny of the financial affair of every single club that has ever played in the PL to the same levels that we have been subjected too.

 

[slbsn]

I do agree that they've been framed to appear serious and I suspect that's part of the point. We don't really know in detail what the specifics of the charges are though. However we know enough to be able to deduce some things.

The first group are presumably about the Abu Dhabi sponsorships. The largest of these was covered by the CAS hearing and they were dismissed. The Etihad sponsorship was found to be entirely legitimate and not disguised equity investment. If the PL had evidence that we'd lied about this and deliberately concealed this fact then we would certainly be in big trouble. But from the little I've heard we've presented exactly the same evidence to the IC that we did to CAS. We don't know what the PL has of course but I'm confident they don't have a smoking gun. So it sounds like a rerun of CAS and the result will almost certainly be the same.

As I've said on multiple occasions the words 'related parties' form part of that first group and this is the first attempt to properly test the claim that Etihad etc are related parties. But even if they are found to be (and they aren't) so what? That makes zero difference to our financial position. The worst case scenario is that we'd be guilty of misreporting these agreements when we genuinely believed they weren't.

The Mancini stuff is a complete irrelevance and Fordham hardly more so. And even if the Fordham charges were proven then I doubt they would have impacted our FFP position anyway.

As my colleague said to me the other day about something at work "It's all bollocks Colin". And they were right.

As someone on here memorably said 'the process is the punishment'. And they were right as well.

I don’t see how you can suggest the allegations are the same as CAS plus some other things and then say they are not serious. City themselves said they were “very serious”. The word “serious” appears TWENTY FIVE times in the CAS decision.

And I am certain the disclosure in the PL case is far beyond CAS which was extremely limited on any basis and insufficient to prove the alleged fraudulent conspiracy. Again, we don’t need to speculate - these are City’s words.

BTW I am not suggesting every aspect of the PLs behaviour is “entirely rational”. On the contrary, I’ve criticised lots of aspects even from the limited amount we know. But I think it is very dangerous to underestimate the other side when it is manned with some of the best quality lawyers in the country who would simply not pursue a hopeless case.

Fortunately, it is crystal clear, City have taken the whole matter very seriously hiring a huge squad of high quality specialists with a money no object approach.

Personally, I accept on the face of the emails, there has been a case to answer (ignoring the debate about whether it’s fair/legal for the PL to go after a case essentially the same as CAS, if they have)

I’ve been burned in litigation too many times to take anything for granted, to be too confident or to underestimate opponents even where I think they are totally wrong on something.

 

[slbsn]

If they want to go down the fraud route, then there should be scrutiny of the financial affair of every single club that has ever played in the PL to the same levels that we have been subjected too.

There has to be a complaint about something from another club and an investigation. The clubs appear to have even been reluctant to complain about Chelsea so for whatever reason (City included) nobody is alleging fraud vs any other club and nor do we know of any grounds (except Chelsea).

 

[homerdog]

...it sounds like a rerun of CAS

It's important to recognise this - there is no doubt in my mind that the whole reason the PL charged us is because the red cabal were pissed off that we were cleared of the UEFA charges by CAS. It's a fucking conspiracy and when the truth eventually comes out, it will be clear for all to see.