PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Ric]

I know you're probably bored to the back teeth of the same repetitive questions so I shall apologise in advance.
To me, a normal fan looking from the outside in, we're being accused of false figures in sponsorship deals and monies in general about the club, correct?

To me that is fraud is it not? What I'm failing to join together is that if the Premier League are accusing us of it and they seem cocksure we are fiddling about figures, why aren't the relevant authorities acting on it?

And I've just realised your username is projectriver. I've always read it as projectdriver.

My bad. :)

As per @Chris in London's excellent FAQs thread:

If fraud is alleged, why haven’t City been charged by the criminal authorities?

It would have been unusual for (say) the Serious Fraud Office to commence an investigation in a case like this where what is alleged is a breach of the PL’s internal rules. However they tend not to announce it from the rooftops when they are commencing an investigation, especially if that would result in (for instance) evidence being destroyed.

If the charges are proved (and there is no appeal), it is quite probable that a criminal allegation would be launched. Given how high-profile this case is, it would be difficult for the SFO to resist the pressure to launch their own investigation.

However, the standard of proof in a criminal case is even higher – it is beyond reasonable doubt – and the age of some of the charges means that it would be very difficult to persuade a jury that the accounts signed off 12 or 13 years ago were knowingly/fraudulently mis-stated. Moreover, if City lost it is almost inevitable that there would be an appeal, which would mean that the events in question were even more historic.

Never say never, but criminal charges seems very very unlikely even if the PL charges are successful.

 

[Dribble]

There's a lot of feeling in there.

Because my club is apparently under mortal threat, & supposed City fans are adding to the bullshit we're facing.

I'm a realist who likes to be told how things are. The crucial point always being avoided is:

No police. No HMRC. No SFO. No accusation of fraud. Nothing. Why?

Before we get dragged into the accounting & legal weeds, why not think laterally & seek answers to the above fundamentals first...

 

[projectriver]

I know you're probably bored to the back teeth of the same repetitive questions so I shall apologise in advance.
To me, a normal fan looking from the outside in, we're being accused of false figures in sponsorship deals and monies in general about the club, correct?

To me that is fraud is it not? What I'm failing to join together is that if the Premier League are accusing us of it and they seem cocksure we are fiddling about figures, why aren't the relevant authorities acting on it?

And I've just realised your username is projectriver. I've always read it as projectdriver.

My bad. :)

These things are rarely straightforward. If the matters were proven it may well be that other authorities would involve themselves because in City's words at CAS: "The allegations made by the CFCB in these proceedings are serious and based on fraud and conspiracy involving MCFC, ADUG and the sponsors Etisalat and Etihad." Therefore, if proven, City would clearly have an issue.

It really isn't a debate that this is what the allegations amount to given that City said this themselves. For CAS' part they said:

"UEFA’s theory would also mean that not only MCFC lied to The FA and UEFA, but also that accountancy firms such as BDO, Deloitte, Ernst & Young and AlixPartners that all examined accounts of one or more entities involved were all misled."

So again, if proven, very serious. Not hyperbolic and not my words.

It doesn't really confirm anything that no other authorities (that we know of) have taken action. They can wait and see.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I'm quite happy to die on this one in defence of Manchester City Football Club.

Enjoy your day.

Just finished for the day, after starting at 10am, so I will. Thanks.

 

[Bozzie]

It must be him, he had Boris type hair but very blonde and a swagger that he could carry off without embarrassment. I have to say he was very good at his job and all the pupils engaged with him, do you know if he’s still with us?

I haven't a clue tbh but he'd be well in his 80's I'd imagine. We only went because one of our friends was the daughter of another Tory councillor and because we could get pissed up on a Friday aged 16 in slightly more salubrious surroundings than Withington Rec.

 

[rabby]

But when they become good again they will change the rules again

Exactly,what we are seeing is a temporary fix being put in place to replace the last temporary fix,and when the trophy winning landscape changes accordingly another fix will be put in place.

 

[projectriver]

Because my club is apparently under mortal threat, & supposed City fanscare adding to the bullshit we're facing.

I'm a realist who likes to be told how things are. The crucial point always being avoided is:

No police. No HMRC. No SFO. No accusation of fraud. Nothing. Why?

Before we get dragged into the accounting & legal weeds, why not think laterally & seek answers to the above fundamentals first...

I've explained many times. Not all fraud is criminal. Not all allegations of fraud involve the SFO or HMRC - in this case City will have paid more tax (or reduced its deferred tax losses) so HMRC is probably a red herring anyway.

But there is not even a debate to be had about the nature of the allegations - in City's words at CAS: "The allegations made by the CFCB in these proceedings are serious and based on fraud and conspiracy involving MCFC, ADUG and the sponsors Etisalat and Etihad."

For CAS' part they said: "UEFA’s theory would also mean that not only MCFC lied to The FA and UEFA, but also that accountancy firms such as BDO, Deloitte, Ernst & Young and AlixPartners that all examined accounts of one or more entities involved were all misled."

So again, if proven, very serious. Not hyperbolic and not my words.

 

[Dribble]

If the accusation is where the sponsor got their money and the sponsor being based in UAE, would HMRC get involved?
If the accusation is the sponsor paid too much, would we actually be due a rebate?

This is EXACTLY where all this hyperbole is driving City fans insane, instead of pointing out a few crucial fundamentals.

To verify their accusations against City, the PL will need access to the accounts of companies based in the UAE. Fat chance of getting those!

Now someone mentioned part of City's non-cooperation breaches were, we were asked to get them for UEFA & we told them go get it themselves, as we've as much right as UEFA have to demand a foreign entity's detailed accounts & banks statements.

These obvious, but fundamental point keep being overlooked. Without access to these foreign accounts & bank statements, all UEFA & the PL have is supposition without any actual hard evidence.

Regarding the sponsors, when has anyone heard of HMRC complaining they've been paid too much tax? They've been made aware of the Der Spiegel allegations, but as yet we've not had our collar felt. Why haven't more people questioned why?

 

[CC1]

It's shite like this that opposition fans see and believe. Regardless of what happens we will be guilty in the eyes of the thicker element of the footballing community. I know it's utter shite, but it's utter shite that people believe.

View attachment 116750

Not clicking on it - but what is this “big update”

 

[M18CTID]

lol it really is pathetic isnt it, HMRC would never ever name or single out the club like those headlines say, but hey 4 games to go and the race is neck and neck, the next pile of shit on the eve of the FA Cup Final i think

No sure if I've got my wires crossed mate but if you're referring to the Daily Mail article that @Dribble posted, it's not a new article. It was from November 2018