I'd be interested to know how high the bar is in terms of burden of proof. Is it actual proof, reasonable suspicion, or just likely in the opinion of the IC?I'm intrigued by what the PL have to present to the IC in order to equitably justify alleged "Concealment".
I'm assuming it's physical evidence that must satisfy the civil burden of proof and not "hearsay". Are the emails themselves sufficient?
The 2010/11 stuff will be Mancini, as the allegations of player and manager remuneration are covered under the same heading.I don't know. And yet you brought it up, I hear you ask ...
There was some talk when the allegations were referred that the player remuneration charges related to Toure. Remember he was asked and he said it was all fine? Most of us on here thought the player remuneration thing was Fordham. But this is the thing. Fordham didn't start until 2013 and the allegations for player remuneration start in 2010/11. The year Toure started. So maybe it's Toure. Or maybe it's Toure and Fordham. In both cases, the issue is most probably payment for the use of image rights.
The allegations for player remuneration finish in 2015/6 iirc which is the year Fordham started to be wound down, I think. Pretty sure Toure stayed another couple of years. Make of that what you will .....
You’re making a big assumption here - the backdrop to this case very much depends on the individual.
I doubt members of the tribunal will be following this issue in the court of public opinion (Twitter and football forums). I’d hazard a guess they don’t have talksport on every day in chambers.
True, they will see some coverage in mainstream press but that is no different to other cases/inquiries they will have been involved in previously.
You could extend this to City’s legal team. I’m sure Pannick wants to win this case, but he would want to win the case equally as much if he was representing the PL.
They are professional people doing their job. That’s all there is to it.
Surely the emails were just grounds for investigation, I'm not a legal expert but I'd be quite shocked if they were deemed to be sufficient on their own to satisfy "balance of probabilities" without backup from a verifiable transaction trail.I'm intrigued by what the PL have to present to the IC in order to equitably justify alleged "Concealment".
I'm assuming it's physical evidence that must satisfy the civil burden of proof and not "hearsay". Are the emails themselves sufficient?
If the PL are after a dignified way out, then the inability to conduct a 'fair trial' due to media speculation might allow them to save face and pretend to be competent.Indeed. But when the PL is forced to comment on mainstream media reports, of speculation based on sove very loose twitter claims, it will almost certainly filter through to both legal teams, and possibly the IC too. Which has happened a couple times already.
There is a third exception - Mistake.Statute of Limitations
So there are two possible exceptions to the six year rule.
1 Criminality
We have to be safe to assume its absolutely not applicable, no GMP, HMRC, DPP, SFO interest.
2 Concealment
So is the level detail that City are being judged on far deeper than required by the PL handbooks AND applied to EVERY other club. For example the PL can't say your guilty of not revealing some particular financial details if NO other club had done likewise. Don't forget every other Club's accounts are in the public domain.
Personally I no longer give a flying fuck about anything becoming tine barred, gone past caring and would welcome it.
Hmmmm get the retraction in early very cunning :)
& if he doesn’t, he’s up on a non Cooperation chargeTell him he needs to hand over his hard drive & if he’s got nothing to hide he would do it….
UEFA-"hold my beer..."Surely the emails were just grounds for investigation, I'm not a legal expert but I'd be quite shocked if they were deemed to be sufficient on their own to satisfy "balance of probabilities" without backup from a verifiable transaction trail.
In my experience they then asked for documentation, ie an audit trail. When I was responsible for a main budget in a large company, every year they asked me to prove a selection of items with full documentation. In addition if any items were queried, I would be questioned as well. They could not be fobbed off but, equally, they were not finickety to the last degree.Clearly, I am not an auditor, but I am intrigued by the level of scrutiny they applied to City's accounts. So for example, on dd/mm/yyyy City's bank account received a payment in for £40M. Presumably the auditors query this either via email or in person, whatever. And the City accounts person replies "Oh that was a sponsorship payment from Ethihad Airways". Is that the end of the conversation ? the BDO person just says "thanks for that, moving on, next item..."
FFS there must be more scrutiny than that ?. We have never seen ANY leaked emails between City and BDO. Why might that be ?.