PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Chappie said:
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 .
Click to expand...
My question is, is the PL's Independent Commission a Civil Court?

The IC sound more like the Executive Committee of the Wheeltappers & Shunters Social Club, with about as much power in actual UK Law.

the_wheeltappers_and_shunters_social_club.jpg
 
Bluewonder said:
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.
Click to expand...

The related party transactions relate to the sale of IP to group companies (scouting systems and the like). Fordham wasn't a related party transaction.
 
Chappie said:
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 .
Click to expand...

The PL allegations aren't for fraud in a criminal context, the allegations are for breaches of contract that effectively represent fraudulent behaviour. Civil law claims.

That said, the seriousness of the claims raise the level of cogency required in the evidence presented. But balance of probabilities is the standard of proof in this civil claim and there is nothing the club can do about it but suck it up and defend themselves.

If you are confused about the difference between civil and criminal cases and the standards of proof, think O J Simpson.
 
halfcenturyup said:
The PL allegations aren't for fraud in a criminal context, the allegations are for breaches of contract that effectively represent fraudulent behaviour. Civil law claims.

That said, the seriousness of the claims raise the level of cogency required in the evidence presented. But balance of probabilities is the standard of proof in this civil claim and there is nothing the club can do about it but suck it up and defend themselves.

If you are confused about the difference between civil and criminal cases and the standards of proof, think O J Simpson.
Click to expand...
This is where I always get extra twitchy. Who decides what the level of cogency is, cos I’ve never seen anything to dissuade me from the notion that the Tribunal will be able to make that ‘level’ be whatever they want it to be (within reason)?
 
Bluewonder said:
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.
Click to expand...
I might be wrong but this is a civil case and therefore SOL does apply even if fraud is alleged ?
 
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.