PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Gone for a Burton]

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.

SATURDAY !!

 

[radcliffe1309]

SATURDAY !!

Must be on about Coventry...

 

[Invisible Man's Bandage]

I won't bother linking the article but this is from The Guardian. It's about fans being priced out of top level football (which is a decent topic) but this is a quote from a home and away Everton fan.

You know, when we played Man City, our whole first XI cost less than Jack Grealish, who was on the bench and came on for 10 minutes,” he says. “And yet we’re the ones done for a points deduction, for an overspend, while they can do what they’re doing, get all their oil money, spin it through their different companies, through their PO boxes or whatever they’re doing and get away with it.

Obviously The Guardian is completely shite but even by their pitiful standards this is fucking disgraceful.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Surely City would fight any judgement that is on the balance of probability.

It's a civil case. Balance of probabilities is the burden of proof.

 

[Centurions]

I won't bother linking the article but this is from The Guardian. It's about fans being priced out of top level football (which is a decent topic) but this is a quote from a home and away Everton fan.

You know, when we played Man City, our whole first XI cost less than Jack Grealish, who was on the bench and came on for 10 minutes,” he says. “And yet we’re the ones done for a points deduction, for an overspend, while they can do what they’re doing, get all their oil money, spin it through their different companies, through their PO boxes or whatever they’re doing and get away with it.

Obviously The Guardian is completely shite but even by their pitiful standards this is fucking disgraceful.

Must be bloody big PO boxes we use :)

 

[Dribble]

And I’ve given my opinion what I believe he hasn’t done well.

We're all entitled to an opinion, & ours respectfully differ. I'm sure we're both hoping for the best outcome for City, so on that score we can both concur.

 

[Bluewonder]

Following Lassel's point that Fordham was disclosed as a related party in the club's accounts, I spent some time digging to corroborate.

Unfortunately, there is no mention of Fordham; however, the FY13 accounts contain the following disclosure, which I'll paraphrase:

"In FY23 the club entered into transactions with group subsidiary, City Football Marketing Limited, for the sale of intangible assets of £11.6m, and with group subsidiary, City Football Group Limited, for the sale of intangible assets of £10.6m."

This is quite clearly disclosed in the Related Party Transactions note (note 24) and presumably relates to the image rights sale.

As I understand from the lawyers on here, a central tenet of the case is that City has acted fraudulently and that entitles the PL to broaden the case beyond the six year statute of limitations in the laws of England and Wales.

My contention, therefore, is that the club has not acted fraudulently and has disclosed the sale (or, rather, sales, as appears) in the relevant note of its audited accounts.

Unless I'm missing something, which is very possible as my expertise lies in finance rather than law, I'm struggling to see how the PL can even allege fraud, never mind prove it.

Any comments are welcome.

 

[Dribble]

Unfortunately Chappie you are so right.
I wait with baited breath mate. ;)

We have a pedantic set of planks or two on BM. He popped up on a response of mine a few days ago, shot his load, flopped out, & then didn't respond to my last response to him, because to do so, he'd have had to argue against the very points he'd been bellyaching about.

I suppose he epitomises all that's wrong with the Internet. :-)

 

[Chappie]

It's a civil case. Balance of probabilities is the burden of proof.

I'm aware of that,my question was,would City take a guilty verdict on the balance of probability on such a serious charge .
The accusations are tantamount to a large scale fraud, over many year's, you can't make such allegations and come up with a guilty verdict on the balance of probability.
This surely would take it out of the realms of civil law and into criminal law, irrespective of any premier league rules. .
Do you honestly believe that City would not challenge any ruling on something that,on the "balance of probability" ,could destroy the whole fabric of the club and the CFG .

 

[Dribble]

Following Lassel's point that Fordham was disclosed as a related party in the club's accounts, I spent some time digging to corroborate.

Unfortunately, there is no mention of Fordham; however, the FY13 accounts contain the following disclosure, which I'll paraphrase:

"In FY23 the club entered into transactions with group subsidiary, City Football Marketing Limited, for the sale of intangible assets of £11.6m, and with group subsidiary, City Football Group Limited, for the sale of intangible assets of £10.6m."

This is quite clearly disclosed in the Related Party Transactions note (note 24) and presumably relates to the image rights sale.

As I understand from the lawyers on here, a central tenet of the case is that City has acted fraudulently and that entitles the PL to broaden the case beyond the six year statute of limitations in the laws of England and Wales.

My contention, therefore, is that the club has not acted fraudulently and has disclosed the sale (or, rather, sales, as appears) in the relevant note of its audited accounts.

Unless I'm missing something, which is very possible as my expertise lies in finance rather than law, I'm struggling to see how the PL can even allege fraud, never mind prove it.

Any comments are welcome.

Agreed 100%... Fordham was mentioned & settled with UEFA in 2014, & was wound down in 2015, formally ending with all image rights returning to City in 2018.

I've absolutely no idea either why it's being brought up by some on here again. Not knowing the details of the charges, I find it difficult (but not impossible) for the PL to exhumed this old chestnut again, whilst hoping to prove something which settled a decade ago with UEFA.

The mind boggles...