PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Exeter Blue I am here]

The IC may not. But they are being asked to. Civil fraud not criminal fraud.

What’s the distinction between the two?

 

[halfcenturyup]

What’s the distinction between the two?

Civil fraud is between private parties and results in compensation or other civil remedies. Criminal fraud relates to illegal activity prosecuted by the Crown with criminal sanctions such as imprisonment.

So the IC can determine an activity to be fraudulent as long as it relates to, in this case, for example, a breach of contract, but it can't determine criminal fraud. Although the same activity may well also be criminal if prosecuted in a criminal court.

I think :)

 

[halfcenturyup]

I'm absolutely no expert but it surprises me how many on here are equating the PL claiming that the club circumvented PSR & preceding financial regulations by fraudulent means with criminal fraud offences.

It is entirely possible for us to be found guilty of the PL allegations without any criminal offence taking place surely?

Yes and no :)

 

[Invisible Man's Bandage]

Yes and no :)

By that I assume that I can be correct depending on what the club has done to circumvent PL rules but it could also be criminal if more serious actions are uncovered?

 

[halfcenturyup]

By that I assume that I can be correct depending on what the club has done to circumvent PL rules but it could also be criminal if more serious actions are uncovered?

I was just trying to lighten the mood, really, but yes it is possible that the club can breach the PL rules without being criminally fraudulent. Everton and Forest did, after all.

In our case, however, the combined allegations of filing incorrect accounts to provide an FFP benefit, whilst acting in bad faith leads to the inevitable conclusion that the allegations effectively represent fraud. I should know, I have been blasted by the lawyers on here many times for suggesting otherwise.

Actually, that isn't bad for the club as it raises the level of cogency required in the evidence to prove it to a level which the PL, very probably, can't reach.

Again, all imho.

 

[Dribble]

I actually think he’s done some really positive stuff, especially around the nightlife economy. I listened to him on a podcast years ago & liked him & thought he stood up well in Covid however ultimately punished for doing it.

So I want to like him.

Has the Chief Constable had an opinion on football governance?

I hope you can see the pattern. I was the same with Sam Lee, harder on him than any other journalist because I expect more. As a representative with close links you’d expect any discussion prior to CAS he could have been the lone voice to write an article that possibly City could be found innocent, he didn’t.

Not fucking 1!

I see you've inserted "possibly".

Aren't you putting the cart before the horse? Without being party to the detailed breach accusations & supporting evidence, & City's defence & supporting evidence, how can we resonably expect politician Burham make any claims regarding City's guilt or innocence?

Don't you think it prudent to be in receipt of all the facts before making a judgement call?

Haven't City fans been lamenting over the media & opposition fans deciding we're guilty when similarly having zero supporting or contrary evidence to back up their claims?

Mate, we can't have it both ways.

 

[cheekybids]

I see you've inserted "possibly".

Aren't you putting the cart before the horse? Without being party to the detailed breach accusations & supporting evidence, & City's defence & supporting evidence, how can we resonably expect politician Burham make any claims regarding City's guilt or innocence?

Don't you think it prudent to be in receipt of all the facts before making a judgement call?

Haven't City fans been lamenting over the media & opposition fans deciding we're guilty when similarly having zero supporting or contrary evidence to back up their claims?

Mate, we can't have it both ways.

I inserted ‘possibly’ when talking about why I was critical of Sam Lee.

I’ve obviously upset you because I criticised Andy Burnham, don’t take it to heart but there are ways of showing support prior to receiving all the facts. It’s called innocent until proven guilty.

 

[Dribble]

I inserted ‘possibly’ when talking about why I was critical of Sam Lee.

I’ve obviously upset you because I criticised Andy Burnham, don’t take it to heart but there are ways of showing support prior to receiving all the facts. It’s called innocent until proven guilty.

I'm not upset, I'm just trying to be even handed. We can't curse all & sundry for deciding we're guilty until proven otherwise, then call out Burnham for not claiming we're innocent until proven otherwise, & him wanting City to be treated fairly. I just don't see what he's done wrong...

 

[StillBluessinceHydeRoad]

There was a European parliament report a few years ago that supported FFP, despite the challenge to EU law on unfair restraint on trade. What didn't get as much publicity was that the report also said that the regulatory body should not be run by directors of the clubs who might set and enforce rules to their clubs' advantage.

If we're speaking about the same report it was from the European commission. It accepted that UEFA was a suitable body to "regulate" (I can't remember the actual word used) European football but it stressed that regulations must be within the framework of European competition law. Their statement had nothing to do with FFP except in the most general terms, but was the result of widespread discontent in Germany with loans made to Spain by the EU to help with their financial crisis and budget deficit, and thus paid in part by German taxpayers, while multi-millionaire players such as Messi and Renaldo were given very generous tax breaks by the Spanish government. These tax breaks are no longer permitted, but not because of pressure from UEFA or any regulation by them.

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

Civil fraud is between private parties and results in compensation or other civil remedies. Criminal fraud relates to illegal activity prosecuted by the Crown with criminal sanctions such as imprisonment.

So the IC can determine an activity to be fraudulent as long as it relates to, in this case, for example, a breach of contract, but it can't determine criminal fraud. Although the same activity may well also be criminal if prosecuted in a criminal court.

I think :)

Cheers!