PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[oakiecokie]

If you like.
It reinforces guilt to those that want it to be true. Trump was found guilty.
If he got as many charges as City, he’d get away with it like City have.


Bwah -ha-ha-ha…….

I take it back. You’re right. It’s hilarious.

If you can laugh in the face of adversity its pisses the Rags and Scousers off very easily.

 

[jrb]

I'm finding it hard to believe that so many City fans are getting worked up about a sad deranged jounalist. It's pretty bizarre.

Just wait until City are found guilty of the 115 charges. ;-) Harris, Top Hat, Migs, etc, will be all over this thread.

 

[bigA]

It’s him the mad ****!

Let's all bombard Magic Hats X page outing him as Nick Harris. Tell him he needs therapy for having conversations with himself. See if he can block us all.

 

[meltonblue]

Send that to the Magic **** in Twitter! They clearly have only just joined the party and haven't got a clue what they're talking about. They won't be interested in facts mind.

I’ve spent long enough explaining it all to rival fans at work, I couldn’t give a badgers fucknuts about a random on Twitter :)

 

[halfcenturyup]

The renewal was set up to be Etisalat-ADUG-City wasn’t it? There’s no issues with doing it that way as such, the issue (well, Uefa’s allegation) was that that agreement wasn’t in place at the time and Etisalat didn’t reimburse ADUG, we said they did as part of the payment in 2015 when the renewal was fully signed off.

Yes.

 

[halfcenturyup]

I am no lawyer, but I think I have deduced the exact law being referenced concerning time limitations, is the Limitation Act 1980. Where Section 7 states; an arbitration award may not be enforced more that 6 years from the date on which the cause of action accrued(charges brought forward?).

The concealment and fraud bit, is where I'm now confused because I thought that would lift any restrictions completely(the reason why the PL took 5 years to act and then went as far back as 2009/10).
View attachment 120896
And then there is this helpful site which shows this:
View attachment 120897
So a 6 year limit does still apply, the difference is the discovery date(Nov 2018) vs the date of official proceedings(charged Feb 2023). Is that about right? If that's the case, then anything before November 2012 would be outside the limitation period. I still hope City prove their case regardless, learn from CAS, leave the cretins in the press(and twitter) no room to avoid admitting defeat.

Pretty sure it means that anything before February 2017 is time limited, the only discussion being if anything that happened before then was "deliberately concealed" in which case it can still be considered because discovery was November 2018 (ie less than six years before February 2023).

I doubt they can prove Mancini was deliberately concealed because there was no point: no FFP and no "full remuneration" disclosure requirement. I also doubt Fordham can be proven to be deliberately concealed. It was all disclosed in the accounts so they could have looked at it at any time. So that really just leaves the sponsorships and Toure (if that is, indeed, part of the allegations). I know nothing about Toure, tbh.

 

[halfcenturyup]

I blocked him so haven't read any of his more recent posts but, from memory, he's a fully paid up, card carrying member of the 'City chose the CAS panel' club. I think he also believes CAS are simultaneously incompetent, untrustworthy and generally not fit for purpose. I wouldn't hold your breath for a balanced, impartial take on the CAS verdict.

For what it's worth, these are the CAS rules for choosing the arbitrators:

"R54 Appointment of the Sole Arbitrator or of the President and Confirmation of the Arbitrators by CAS

If, by virtue of the parties’ agreement or of a decision of the President of the Division, a sole arbitrator is to be appointed, the President of the Division shall appoint the sole arbitrator upon receipt of the motion for appeal or as soon as a decision on the number of arbitrators has been rendered.

If three arbitrators are to be appointed, the President of the Division shall appoint the President of the Panel following nomination of the arbitrator by the Respondent and after having consulted the arbitrators. The arbitrators nominated by the parties shall only be deemed appointed after confirmation by the President of the Division. Before proceeding with such confirmation, the President of the Division shall ensure that the arbitrators comply with the requirements of Article R33.

When selecting sole arbitrators and presidents of panels, the President of the Division shall consider the criteria of expertise, diversity, equality and turnover of arbitrators.

In case a special list of arbitrators exists in relation to a particular sport or event, the Sole Arbitrator or the President of the Panel shall be appointed from such list, unless the parties agree otherwise or the President of the Division decides otherwise due to exceptional circumstances.

Once the Panel is formed, the CAS Court Office takes notice of the formation of the Panel and transfers the file to the arbitrators, unless none of the parties has paid an advance of costs in accordance with Article R64.2 of the Code.

An ad hoc clerk, independent of the parties, may be appointed to assist the Panel. Her/his fees shall be included in the arbitration costs.

Article R41 applies mutatis mutandis to the appeals arbitration procedure, except that the President of the Panel is appointed by the President of the Appeals Division."

So, basically the President should set the chairman of the panel, which is what he did. He did it after one party made a suggestion and the other accepted.

Doesn't seem to me like anything was done against the rules at all.

If UEFA didn't like the suggestion for the chairman, they could have disagreed. They agreed. End of story.

The conflict of interest conspiracy theory with the chairman, is a red herring as well, of course. To any sane individual, anyway (which rules out Magic Nick).

(Edited to correct an enormous mistake, should be OK now?)

 

[jrb]

Pretty sure it means that anything before February 2017 is time limited, the only discussion being if anything that happened before then was "deliberately concealed" in which case it can still be considered because discovery was November 2018 (ie less than six years before February 2023).

I doubt they can prove Mancini was deliberately concealed because there was no point: no FFP and no "full remuneration" disclosure requirement. I also doubt Fordham can be proven to be deliberately concealed. It was all disclosed in the accounts so they could have looked at it at any time. So that really just leaves the sponsorships and Toure (if that is, indeed, part of the allegations). I know nothing about Toure, tbh.

 

[Son of Merv]

For what it's worth, these are the CAS rules for choosing the arbitrators:

"R40.2 Appointment of the Arbitrators

The parties may agree on the method of appointment of the arbitrators from the CAS list. In the absence of an agreement, the arbitrators shall be appointed in accordance with the following paragraphs.

If, by virtue of the arbitration agreement or a decision of the President of the Division, a sole arbitrator is to be appointed, the parties may select her/him by mutual agreement within a time limit of fifteen days set by the CAS Court Office upon receipt of the request. In the absence of agreement within that time limit, the President of the Division shall proceed with the appointment.

If, by virtue of the arbitration agreement, or a decision of the President of the Division, three arbitrators are to be appointed, the Claimant shall nominate its arbitrator in the request or within the time limit set in the decision on the number of arbitrators, failing which the request for arbitration is deemed to have been withdrawn. The Respondent shall nominate its arbitrator within the time limit set by the CAS Court Office upon receipt of the request. In the absence of such appointment, the President of the Division shall proceed with the appointment in lieu of the Respondent. The two arbitrators so appointed shall select the President of the Panel by mutual agreement within a time limit set by the CAS Court Office. Failing agreement within that time limit, the President of the Division shall appoint the President of the Panel."

So, basically, the two parties can do what they want to select the, in this case, three arbitrators and who should be the chairman. If they can't or don't agree, then there are set procedures to follow.

Nothing was done against the rules at all.

If UEFA didn't like the suggestion for the third arbitrator, they could have disagreed and proposed another. If agreement wasn't reached, then the two chosen arbitrators could have appointed the third and, if they couldn't agree, the third would be appointed by CAS. They agreed. End of story.

The conflict of interest conspiracy theory with the third arbitrator, the chairman, is a red herring as well, of course. To any sane individual, anyway (which rules out Magic Nick).

Just a small point...you're quoting the Ordinary Arbitration regs and the hearing was an appeal, so section C R54 is the regulation that covers appointment of the panel.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Just a small point...you're quoting the Ordinary Arbitration regs and the hearing was an appeal, so section C R54 is the regulation that covers appointment of the panel.

Well, bugger me. You are right. :)

Something new learnt. Thanks for that.

I'll update the original post so I don't confuse anyone else with complete bollocks.