PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

projectriver said:
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.
Click to expand...
I cant tell you how delighted I am to see someone respond to this know all clown and shoot him down in flames.
 
Iassel said:
Well yes as the Mancini and Fordham bits are well known and established ‘facts’ now, as discussed at CAS with Mancini although it can be proven that he did have a ‘second contract’ with Abu Dhabi, the amount of money is completely immaterial and wouldn’t have made the club pass or fail FFP.

With Fordham again it’s no secret that the club did move its image rights to a seperate company, ostensibly to ‘create’ some extra revenue in the years before the club didn’t have to worry about FFP. It’s generally agreed that UEFA were aware and didn’t take issue with this and it ended from memory in 2017 anyway.

My glass half empty expectation is that the tribunal will come down hard on these two aspects and impose a penalty that will ultimately be pedalled way back as Mancini is immaterial and Fordham was never a secret to anyone.

As said though, I’m a natural pessimist!


We know this because it’s public record that City lost in Commercial Court and were forced to turn over additional requested documents.

They might not have anything more substantive, but they 100% have more than the Der Spiegel emails which was my only point.


Well on Mancini and Fordham the whole point is not what is in the clubs record, but what’s *not* in the clubs records.
On Mancini I think we can safely surmise that their entire argument is that the club should’ve declared a further £1.5m a year in expenses for the AD contract. They may or may not have a case on that but as said above it’s ultimately completely immaterial - £1.5m per year wouldnt have put the club above the FFP line as it was losing around £100m+ a year at that point.

This one should be an easy ‘win’ for the P&L but any sanction would have to be extremely minimal for such an immaterial sum.

In Fordham, you have it the wrong way round when you say that it was ‘to reduce expenses’ - the whole point of Fordham was to ‘sell’ the image rights from the club to Fordham to generate additional revenue and I think it’s the only place the PL could have any substantive ‘success’ as it’s established that this did happen.

The issue for the PL is that Fordham is a limited company and was from memory disclosed as a related party in the filed accounts so they can’t claim City ‘hid’ anything from them, it was there in black and white at the time, so again any sporting sanction cannot be large imo.

To repeat myself from above, I’m a natural pessimist so my expectation is that the tribunal will come down in a draconian manner but it won’t hold on appeal as these two issues are clearly not game changers.


Eh? In the exact same sentence as saying the club was forced to turn over addition documents, I said there’s no way they would’ve self incriminated in doing so.

As said, my only point on the additional documents is that it’s fact that the PL will have more than the Der Speigel emails, but for them to have anything substantive it will have had to come from an outside source.
Click to expand...

OK, you didn't take me up on the DM offer, so a few points to consider:

Mancini was never charged by UEFA and so was never discussed at CAS.

Neither was Fordham, although it was known to UEFA as part of the 2014 settlement.

It can be proven that an AJ contract was signed by Mancini, but without external verification, it can't be proven if and how the contract was fulfilled.

There was no FFP at the time Mancini was at the club. His termination settlement fell in the first three-year PL FFP assessment period, but that was negotiated extra-contract presumably.

There was also no requirement at the time to report all manager remuneration to the PL. Have a look at rules P7 and P8 in the earlier handbooks.

Fordham wasn't a related party as defined by accounting standards, the PL APT rules didn't come in until much later

On Fordham, it doesn't appear that the revenue from either of the IP sales in 2013 is an issue. Firstly, because it's equivalent to Chelsea's hotel sale which isn't an issue, apparently. Secondly, because they aren't referred to in the list of referred allegations (although they may be included in "revenue", which I doubt). And thirdly, because the referred allegations *do* refer to the under-reporting of player remuneration 2010/11-2015/16.

All the above doesn't take into account that the PL will have to prove knowing concealment to even look at these issues as they are both time limited otherwise. No chance, imo.

Finally, what's not in the club's books and records is, imo, *the* point to everything: the number of allegations, the allegations over non-cooperation and acting in bad faith and recent changes to PL rules. It is entirely possible the PL considers the club hasn't complied with its requests while the club considers it has complied with all legal requests from the PL.


That's enough for now.
 
Invisible Man's Bandage said:
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?
Click to expand...
Yes hence I said civil fraud. Fraud exists in civil and criminal - they are not the same. The standard of proof in the IC is civil - balance of probabilities
 
KS55 said:
Perfect response Oakie. He will be crying into his beer now he has not been proved right. Why he thinks that is the objective of BM, I cannot fathom.
Click to expand...
I just can`t work the bloke out. Every time he comes on here its a negative response to virtually all and sundries posts.
In his opinion he`s never wrong and even twists what others have not posted just to try and prove he`s correct.The only reason I don`t block him is I love to see others take him down a peg or two. There is no need to try and belittle posters who have a different opinion than himself.
But well played Stefan and long may it continue. ;)
 
Chappie said:
Surely City would fight any judgement that is on the balance of probability.
Click to expand...
I believe this is where the recently added PL ’reasonable suspicion / doubt’ filter could be used - rather like the powers now deciding what is fair market value in sponsorships etc.
Its an absolute minefield. The main charges which could lead to the strongest sanctions cannot - ( again in my humble view) - be founded on feelings or suspicion. There is simply too much at stake to impose sanction without the strongest evidence. Trusting our Chairman, if we have irrefutable proof good luck to the other side!
Keep the faith and let’s raise the roof for the players and Pep on Sunday. They are going to need us.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.