PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Kinkys Left Foot said:
So following Magic Twats latest revelations on demand:
1. Why City "Got away with it" at CAS

I'm assuming he's referring to the time barred elements. Now as we all know UEFA have a five year disbarring time period. The UEFA rules didn't make clear from what date this ran from. CAS cleared that up and we now know it ran from the date the matters were charged. Not what UEFA stipulated or what MCFC alleged.

The matters concerned within the time barring period I believe were the Etisalat payment schedules via a 3rd party and Mancinis additional contract with AD based ANFC. I'm unsure if the UEFA allegation re Etisalat was that the money was equity funding sponsorship or a sham sponsorship. The Mancini contract I think was that it was a sham contract as a vehicle for additional remuneration.

What was startling was that no evidence was offered by UEFA to try to establish either of those allegations. MCFC presented a wealth of rebuttal evidence in support of their claims both documentary (I'm presuming contract docs for Mancinis contract and invoices and copies of Etisalat account receivables where the movement of monies payable were clear and traceable) and testimonial from appropriate parties.

In any event those matters were time barred and no decision or findings were required by the panel.

I'm sure the same evidence will be available as rebuttal to City in the PL proceedings should those allegations have been made. Its just unclear what evidence the PL may have if the above allegations have been made.

In consideration of the two matters Im pretty sure Citys position will be that these matters occur before the 23.02.2017 and are outside the 6 year limitation period for such matters as laid down by UK law.

The matters could be allowed by the panel should they be subject to "fraud" exemptions of the Limitation Act. However the PL would have to demonstrate that such fraud had taken place or maybe that it would be, "reasonable", to suggest such fraud had taken place. This element of the assumption of fraud seems somewhat opaque to me and I am unsure to what standard the PLs obligations are tested for such matters to be allowed. (Perhaps Stefan can help out here). I would have thought they must supply evidence with the Civil burden of proof of "on the balance of probability" to prove the fraud exists. I'm not sure where this evidence is likely to come from as UEFA certainly had none and I doubt City would provide any (under legal advice) and taking the position that the matters are outside the Limitation Act.

Without the evidence these matters remain time barred due to limitation. I'm interested to know how Magic Twat thinks the PL get around this hurdle so the "how it will be different at the IC" plays out.
Click to expand...
I was under the impression that the limitation period was from the start date of the investigation, so as the PL started their investigation at the same time as UEFA, (sometime in) 2018, then it goes back in time from then, not from when charges were formally made
five year limitation is then 2013
six year 2012
seven year 2011
 
meltonblue said:
They didn’t consider Mancini, Uefa didnt charge us about that. You’re right about the rest though.
Click to expand...

With the added clarification that the issues with the two sponsorships were different: the Etihad sponsorship (according to UEFA) had been primarily funded by ADUG, but paid Etihad > MCFC; the Etisalat sponsorship (the renewal) had been paid directly ADUG > MCFC. Both were explained at CAS but, as was pointed out, Etisalat was time limited.

Both explanations, as far as we know, will also work in front of the PL unless they have additional evidence we don't know about. Seems unlikely.

All imho.
 
dickie davies said:
I was under the impression that the limitation period was from the start date of the investigation, so as the PL started their investigation at the same time as UEFA, (sometime in) 2018, then it goes back in time from then, not from when charges were formally made
five year limitation is then 2013
six year 2012
seven year 2011
Click to expand...

Nope. They have six years from the event to raise a complaint, unless the event was deliberately concealed, in which case it is six years from the date of discovery.

So Mancini in 2011, for example, they can only make a claim until 2017, unless the IP considers the event was deliberately concealed in which case they have six years from the date of discovery, which was November 2018.

I think :)
 
dickie davies said:
I was under the impression that the limitation period was from the start date of the investigation, so as the PL started their investigation at the same time as UEFA, (sometime in) 2018, then it goes back in time from then, not from when charges were formally made
five year limitation is then 2013
six year 2012
seven year 2011
Click to expand...
No I'll think you'll find that was UEFAs position
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2024-05-31 at 16.34.51.png
    Screen Shot 2024-05-31 at 16.34.51.png
    83.6 KB · Views: 114
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.