PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[jim tolmies perm]

That tweet of his reads like some numpty posting in the Daily Mail comments section, there’s a reason why no one takes him serious as a journalist. When Talksport fuck you off it’s time to give up.

When you use "him" and "journalist" in the same sentence be careful please ;)

 

[halfcenturyup]

Of course it’s theoretically possible that this is simply a rehash of the UEFA case with exactly the same evidence, however the fact that the PL went to court, won and City were forced to hand over more than they wanted to suggests that it wont be.

As I’ve said before, my only basis point for speculating that the PL must have something they believe to be a golden bullet is that Adam Lewis has driven the process on their side and the guy quite literally wrote the playbook for how to litigate sporting cases, City obviously have a fantastically knowledgable and competent team also but Lewis is the go-to guy for this sort of case.

It’s important to acknowledge also that he won’t have taken the case for financial reasons, he picks and chooses his cases and will easily net £1m+ per year without taking this on, the hope is that as others have speculated it’s an ego thing for him in ‘succeeding’ where UEFA failed, which i can also accept is very possible.

Ultimately I’m not suggesting that I believe the PL will ‘win’, as with Stefan I think they’ve made a rod for their own back by clearly overcharging the club and with the overt allegation of fraud they’ll need to present something totally explosive to land those charges and I cant believe they have that, even if such a thing exists - my position that I’ve stated previously is that I suspect it will be a ‘guilty’ on Mancini, Fordham & Non-Cooperation, a decent (10+) points deduction and a fine, reduced on appeal to a large fine and maybe 1-3 points which I’m sure the clubs executives would be clearing out Manchester’s Cubana and Dom P reserves for if offered right now.

The underlying thing that I don’t think most have sufficiently acknowledged yet though is that it’s demonstrably *not* going to be a like-for-like tribunal as CAS, simply because it’s public record that the PL have gotten more from City via Commercial Court, now of course it’s phenomenally unlikely City have willingly provided them a golden bullet so I’m not exactly panicking about that, but we should all be clear that they do have a bit more than just the Der Speigel emails.

Now, you see, what I don't understand about this argument is exactly what you are expecting there to be in the books and records of the club that would support the allegations that have been made.

Take Mancini, even assuming it isn't time limited, exactly what are you expecting there to be at the club that would show anything other than a difference of opinion about how much of Mancini's salary should be disclosed to the PL? I am pretty sure they must have all the accounting information relating to the club's contract, there may be some payments made to/from ADUG or AJ relating to the AJ contract, but I am assuming none of those AJ-related payments actually entered the club's profit and loss account otherwise what is the PL wanting exactly? The only things the PL could want, and imho aren't entitled to demand, is confirmation from Mancini's management company of the actual contracts that were operative with AJ, and details of the time spent by Mancini fulfilling that contract. That, if you ask me, is the PL's problem with Mancini, they haven't had access to information that would remove the allegation, because the club told them to fuck off and they don't have the jurisdiction to go independently to third parties even, and I will underline this for emphasis, they have been given everything relevant in the club's books and records as required by the PL rules and the court ruling.

Multiply this by the number of allegations for which the PL has the same problem, and I can't see what the PL could have gleaned from the books and records of the club that would prove, for example, that ADUG funded the Etihad sponsorship, that the Etisalat story at CAS was or wasn't true, that Fordham was created to reduce expenses, that the AD sponsorships weren't fair value or related party transactions. That is why you have 115 charges including non-cooperation, even though the club says they have complied, and acting in bad faith.

The point about Lewis is a red herring, imo. It's one of the highest profile sports law cases and there is plenty for him to get his teeth into with non-cooperation and acting in bad faith even if the case on the primary charges is weak.

All imho, of course.

 

[cheekybids]

Personally, I only heard from Burnham after Everton were docked points.

For Burnham to show outrage about our breaches after seeing our evidence, when the whole process is supposed to be confidential, is about as presumptuous as those screaming we're guilty & who want us hung, drawn & quartered before the hearings taken place & the evidence heard.

Both are opposite sides of the same presumptuous coin imo. If Burnham was to announce he'd seen the evidence of both sides, how could the hearings be a confidential & unbiased process?

I think you're being a littld bit harsh on Burnham...

Burnham has chosen to ignore certain evidence & provide a biased disingenuous commentary. I’m harsh on him, same as he have been on certain Manchester City pundits for the simple reason I expect someone who is vocal on the subject to put to the world that there has been corrupt lobbying, witch hunts & self interest & just fucking possibly City are innocent.

 

[ganganvince]

They have more than the der Spiegel emails?

And you know that because....?

They have nothing. Zilch. Zip. Nada.

As I've said a million times, common sense tells you that if a company or a business has committed fraud on an industrial scale, as we're being accused of whichever way you look at it, then HMRC and the fraud squad would have raided us months ago or when these allegations first broke.

Players agents would be looking for other clubs for their clients wouldn't they? Surely nobody wants to play in the championship? Although Haaland is a league two player at the moment (lol) I don't think he'd be here if we was guilty and I'm 200% sure txiki and khaldoon have sat the squad down to reassure them and tell them to their face that we have done absolutely nothing wrong.

Your post is very wrong my friend.

I can see were @lassel is coming from the CAS info is public they have been to court successfully for further information so must have more or at least clarification on salient points. Whether it is incriminating or not time will tell.

 

[Dribble]

They have more than the der Spiegel emails?

And you know that because....?

They have nothing. Zilch. Zip. Nada.

As I've said a million times, common sense tells you that if a company or a business has committed fraud on an industrial scale, as we're being accused of whichever way you look at it, then HMRC and the fraud squad would have raided us months ago or when these allegations first broke.

Players agents would be looking for other clubs for their clients wouldn't they? Surely nobody wants to play in the championship? Although Haaland is a league two player at the moment (lol) I don't think he'd be here if we was guilty and I'm 200% sure txiki and khaldoon have sat the squad down to reassure them and tell them to their face that we have done absolutely nothing wrong.

Your post is very wrong my friend.

You've only got to look at Nicola Sturgeon's husband's re-arrest, Angela Rayner's police investigation, & now Labour writing to Lancashire police about Mark Menzies in a tit for tat move against the Tories for Currygate & Rayner, to realise the authorities would have dropped on City like a ton of bricks if any of these breaches were a millimetre above total, utter pedantic bullshit.

It beggars belief that some City fans fail to consider this most fundamental of points.

Look at the hatred & vitriol we've faced from within football & the media. Are we seriously suggesting the authorities aren't aware of the Der Spiegel leaks?

Wouldn't the Red Top Mafia & Spuds not have sent every bit of evidence they had to the authorities if it showed unlawful/illegal criminality in respect to City?

Once I stood back & considered what you've brilliantly outlined, I became totally relaxed about our situation.

The amount of money being spoken about in connection to Sturgeon's husband, Currygate, Angela Rayner & Mark Menzies situations don't even accumulate to anywhere near £1,000.000.

If they've had their collars felt for that lot, surely City would have had our collars ripped off & shoved up our arses, with accusations of 15 years of sustained fraud, totalling hundreds of millions of pounds, involving brown, Middle Eastern terrorists?

All City fans need to keep your take on our situation uppermost in their minds.

 

[Dribble]

Burnham has chosen to ignore certain evidence & provide a biased disingenuous commentary. I’m harsh on him, same as he have been on certain Manchester City pundits for the simple reason I expect someone who is vocal on the subject to put to the world that there has been corrupt lobbying, witch hunts & self interest & just fucking possibly City are innocent.

Mate, no offence but I think you're totally overreacting here.

Let's deal with this point by point... What empirical evidence has Burnham ignored, in what's supposedly a confidential process?

 

[halfcenturyup]

I can see were @lassel is coming from the CAS info is public they have been to court successfully for further information so must have more or at least clarification on salient points. Whether it is incriminating or not time will tell.

Nope. It seems to me the PL can't rely on the information CAS says it reviewed to resolve their problems. They could have taken into account the CAS conclusions in their investigation and they chose not to. Once they did that, they needed the third party information themselves. I am guessing the club hasn't given it to them.

What they would have had is more access to the books and records than UEFA had but, see my post above, I doubt there is much there that can incriminate or absolve.

 

[mcfcphil]

This is nonsense - to the extent there is a statute of limitations point to run, the IC will decide and will decide in accordance with English law - the rules are expressly stated to be construed in accordance with English law.

There are reasons for the PL to argue that City's actions means the SoL will not apply (concealment/fraud etc) but this is an argument that will have to be made. It may well be moot but it is undeniable there is an English law SoL in the Premier League rules. It was wrongly expressed by the media briefing at the start and it is wrong now.

Cheers @projectriver - question, do the limitation arguments always take place during the tribunal itself? Or can arguments be heard in a separate prior hearing?

Presumably a prior hearing would save time if it negates the need to go through rafts of evidence? Or do they need to go through the rafts of evidence first to know if limitation applies?

Additionally in the (very) few corporate legal processes I’ve been involved in, lawyers have argued between themselves whether limitation applies to certain aspects of the allegations. Could the same be happening here through channels outside of the tribunal itself?

I’m presuming the tribunal would look very dimly upon a situation whereby a case is brought to them with elements that quite clearly do not meet the limitation threshold due the vast amount of time (and expense) this would waste.

 

[cheekybids]

You're doing exactly what other fans say when talking about Everton or Forest, "what about City".

Everton & Forest admitted breaches, been evaluated and then punished. There is no relation to City's case whatsoever, judge Burnham on what he says when our case is finally over (if ever).

I don’t see how you’ve reached that conclusion. I’ll make my point again in case you’ve misunderstood my opinion.

His platform as the mayor of greater Manchester is to represent the people of the boroughs. He’s used it to try & lobby & influence on behalf of Everton & he’s said that in regard to Everton the Premier league aren’t fit for purpose. Now Manchester City have given a statement that they have irrefutable evidence of their innocence & have continued building infrastructure that impacts his major responsibilities including budgets on policing & transport that wouldn’t be required if the charges are successful. It’s folly that he won’t have asked for assurance & once given it he should have been critical of the charges & reiterated City have irrefutable evidence. If he hasn’t spoken to the club in any way then he’s as shit as Masters is at his job.

Or he could have kept his powder dry on everything.

 

[ganganvince]

This is nonsense - to the extent there is a statute of limitations point to run, the IC will decide and will decide in accordance with English law - the rules are expressly stated to be construed in accordance with English law.

There are reasons for the PL to argue that City's actions means the SoL will not apply (concealment/fraud etc) but this is an argument that will have to be made. It may well be moot but it is undeniable there is an English law SoL in the Premier League rules. It was wrongly expressed by the media briefing at the start and it is wrong now.

This is were I get confused surely an independent commission won't have the authority to call fraud, would that not have to go to a higher level for that decision Before the older charges can be considered?