PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Iassel]

Essentially, UEFA & the PL are accusing us of fraud, but daren't use the word for fear of the legal can of worms it would open.

The PL quite literally have accused the club of fraud. What you say as ‘darent say the word’ actually = charged as written in the competition rules.

You can’t say with a straight face that charging with failing to file correct and up to date financial statements and failing to declare correct compensation figures for 9 years is anything but a direct accusation of fraud.

Cutting to the chase, I repeat they're essentially accusing City of fraud. If this is the case, it's long past the time that the PL & UEFA should come out & say so, or shut the fuck up.

CAS have already ruled UEFA had no evidence, so why the fuck are the PL picking up their baton & coming at us using the same charges which have already

My suspicion all along has been that the PL ‘must’ believe they have something over and above what was argued at CAS as I struggle to believe that Adam Lewis would have advised the PL to move forward simply to rehash the same brief, albeit I concede that as those more knowledgable than me have said, ego can ultimately play an important role too.

 

[halfcenturyup]

A long time ago for me, but iirc, it is verboten by the Arbitration Act to hear an item which is time barred.

Which raises the question: how do you know something is time limited if you haven't heard it? Meaning, if you haven't heard it, you can't determine if it was knowingly concealed or not?

 

[halfcenturyup]

CAS applied the principle that the 5 years applied to the date that the case was passed to the Adjudicatory Chamber, which is the date the investigation finished and that the Investigatory Chamber had decided there was a case to answer. They then set that date as Feb 14th 2014, meaning any transactions from the 2013/14 financial year onwards should be in scrutiny.

Applying the same principle to the PL charges, but with a 6 year limitation, implies that the charges were brought on Feb 6th 2023, when the case was passed to the Independent commission, therefore anything in and after the 2016/17 financial year will be in scope, with anything in 2015/16 or earlier time-barred.

That means:

• Etihad may be in scope, but the controversial parts of the Etisalat sponsorship (where ADUG laid out the money prior to being reimbursed) is unlikely to be.
• Mancini will definitely be out of scope.
• Fordham will probably be out of scope (as I think that effectively ended in 2015 and had definitely ended by 2017).

With the proviso that the UEFA limitation was absolute, but the limitation under the Limitation Act is dependent on there being no knowing concealment.

Not that it changes your conclusion at all, imo.

 

[halfcenturyup]

I'm really confused now with this an owner can buy his own hotel and that's OK but a company can't loan money to another company which than pays off the money owed to the company it owes money to. Than the company that borrowed the money pays back the loan. All companies are happy, happy days.

But this is wrong ! But buying your own hotel to get round ffp is fine

If you are talking about Etisalat, I don't think there is anything wrong at all with the process that was described at CAS.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

With the proviso that the UEFA limitation was absolute, but the limitation under the Limitation Act is dependent on there being no knowing concealment.

Not that it changes your conclusion at all, imo.

As someone said earlier, how can you determine if there's been a knowing fraud or attempt to deceive, unless you hear the evidence first?

 

[terraloon]

Which raises the question: how do you know something is time limited if you haven't heard it? Meaning, if you haven't heard it, you can't determine if it was knowingly concealed or not?

Exactly the point I was trying to make months ago

 

[halfcenturyup]

As someone said earlier, how can you determine if there's been a knowing fraud or attempt to deceive, unless you hear the evidence first?

I liked him. He was very incisive :)

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I liked him. He was very incisive :)

Made a pleasant change to be honest. He's normally a bit of a pub bore.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Made a pleasant change to be honest. He's normally a bit of a pub bore.

That hurt here (points to heart) and here (points to bollocks) :(

 

[KS55]

Which raises the question: how do you know something is time limited if you haven't heard it? Meaning, if you haven't heard it, you can't determine if it was knowingly concealed or not?

Hear = litigate. You can argue about whether an item is admissible without arguing the substantive question. The substantive question would be whether the rules were broken. The admissibility question would be whether there was an intent to deceive irrespective of whether the rules were broken or not. Evidence, evidence.
A very common feature of criminal trials. The jury would be excluded. Currently in the Trump trial playing the Hollywood tape has been excluded but not quotations from it. Not sure I see any distinction.