But you seem to have fundamentally misunderstood the situation - the alleged breaches are breaches of rules but they would also be breaches of various laws if proven - serious breaches. Put criminal law to one side (although they could also be breaches of the Fraud Act etc if ever charged and proven), there would be equivalent civil laws relating to almost every breach aside from the charges relating to cooperation with the PL.
In effect, City themselves said this at CAS and will have said it again to the PL.
But fortunately the charges are not of dirty tea mugs because the actual charges require far more cogent evidence and are, therefore, far harder to prove.
So I'm not sure it is worth others following your logic on this particular matter even if you are right in your support of the club.
PS City won't have issued any warnings about any of those words (to be honest, I doubt they have written to anyone in the media recently on this stuff). They are "charges", it is a "case", it is "legal" and if the IC finds against City whether people say "guilty" or that the charges are "proven" is semantics.
the alleged breaches are breaches of rules but they would also be breaches of various laws if proven - serious breaches.
So seeing as much of this info is already in the public domain, what are HMRC, the SFO & the police waiting for? Like the recent situation with Angela Rayner, why haven't we been reported by someone and/or had our collar felt yet because the authorities have become aware of City's potential criminality?
Are you seriously suggesting the UK Statutory Authorities are waiting for the Premier League's Independent Commission to do their job for them, before they strike & move in to raid the Etihad & slap the bracelets on our Executives?
there would be equivalent civil laws relating to almost every breach aside from the charges relating to cooperation with the PL.
Civil Law is concerned with the rights & property of individual people or organisations, & settles disputes between them, so this could extend to infinity over the most petty of disputes including who owns a pet, or if a neighbour's overhanging tree is encroaching on your property. Let's be honest about the very serious to ultra petty scope of UK Civil disputes here.
As far as I'm aware, only the CPS, police & certain statutory bodies can "charge" people in the UK, & this relates to criminal matters & covers several civil matters too.
When did the PL "
charge" City? Have they ever used the "legal" term in respect to us? If not, why? All I've heard from the PL is "allegations" & "breaches".
They are "charges", it is a "case", it is "legal" and if the IC finds against City whether people say "guilty" or that the charges are "proven" is semantics.
They are "breaches" it's a "hearing" & there's nothing "legal" about it, unless/until a statutory body moves in to investigate with a view to issuing criminal or civil proceedings.
People can use whatever terms they like in reference to these breaches. My point is it's way beyond semantics as to why the PL have (in my opinion) carefully chosen not to. You believe there's nothing in this, but I believe this is absolutely crucial to properly understanding the alleged breaches & the resultant IC hearing.
I too got myself so deep in the forest that I couldn't see the wood for the trees. Yes, I fully support Manchester City, not just as a City fan, but because after getting out of the forest & taking a global overview, I saw these allegations very differently.
The very careful language used by the PL, the fact this has been played out so publicly but yet no statutory body has been complained to, or been on contact with City (to our knowledge) is critical to understanding my viewpoint.
To my knowledge the PL have never used the words "fraud" "charges" "case" "legal" or "guilty" against us & I suspect there's a VERY good reason why.
The PL aren't a statutory body, so are toothless in actual UK Law. They have no legal duty to find us "guilty" or "not guilty", & will just about be able to find us "liable" or "not liable", & even then only in the literal sense of the words, & not the legal sense.
Now I could be wrong here, so I'd appreciate it if you could provide counter empirical evidence to the contrary if you think I am. I don't mind my assertations being challenged & found to be in error, because at the very least it will help settle the minds of millions of worried City fans one way or the other.
Essentially, you feel City are on the verge of very serious legal jeopardy which will put our very PL existence in peril if we're found "guilty" of the "charges".
I feel these are jumped up allegations by a private members club who have about as much clout as the Wheel Tappers & Shunters Social Club's executive committee.
The PL's evidence is based on hacked & spliced emails from which they've formed suppositions & made subsequent allegations.
I think where we can both agree is that the level of cogency required to find us liable is seriously high, & for City's first batch of evidence, we've presented our audited, verified company accounts for starters.
Over to you, the Premier League & their Independent Commission.
