PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[BerkshireBlue]

Have City reeled the PL in with the 115 case, forced them to show all their communications, and now have the evidence to show anti discriminationry behavior in the APT case?

I think they have, you don't go into a discrimination case with no evidence.

 

[East Level 2]

Do we know when we can expect a verdict on this?

Not before this thread reaches 10,000 pages.

 

[laserblue]

It's 5, although you could argue it should be 6, as they've combined the payments to Mancini and the players' image rights into one charge.

Exactly. They broke down 5 charges into 115/129/130 micro charges almost to the absurd level that, for example, City committed one breach at 11 am on Wednesday and then again at 2.30 pm on Thursday just to make it look as bad as possible.

 

[Xhavenjoe]

Exactly. They broke down 5 charges into 115/129/130 micro charges almost to the absurd level that, for example, City committed one breach at 11 am on Wednesday and then again at 2.30 pm on Thursday just to make it look as bad as possible.

Its a bit like stealing a tube of smarties and then getting accused of stealing a blue one, a yellow one etc.

 

[Coatigan]

It's 5, although you could argue it should be 6, as they've combined the payments to Mancini and the players' image rights into one charge.

It is not 5. It is 130.

 

[Scaley]

Not before this thread reaches 10,000 pages.

Bit optimistic.

 

[Judge Roughneck]

Exactly. They broke down 5 charges into 115/129/130 micro charges almost to the absurd level that, for example, City committed one breach at 11 am on Wednesday and then again at 2.30 pm on Thursday just to make it look as bad as possible.

A fundamental error on their part, with the sole intention of making a bigger splash. They've created a legal behemoth that they now have to prove.

 

[blue by birth]

Obviously we have disagreed on the topic - albeit I think respectfully and in good faith - so once again I would just pick up on these few points, once again being my opinion only.

On Mancini, I would actually say it would be pretty easy for the PL to show concealment, not least because we all know full well that the reason Mancini signed the deal with the UAE was to enable both parties to lock in without risking his €14m payout from Inter.

I don’t think any of us disagree that for the most important topics, the evidenciary requirement is going to be huge and likely impossible to meet, but for €1,25m I don’t think the panel will have issue ruling ‘only’ on balance of probabilities, which again only in my opinion wouldn’t be hard for the PL to meet.

On Fordham, the agreement with City wasn’t wound down until sometime between 17 & 19, so it’s highly likely it won’t found to be time barred, but as I’ve said before, it wouldn’t have needed Sherlock Holmes to uncover the setup as Cliff was even a director….

That said, the Fordham arrangement ultimately added £59.9m in revenue to the club, so clearly it would in theory pass the materiality test for filing false accounts and acting in bad faith, however as above would in my opinion fall on the fact that City weren’t ever hiding the setup…

As said before, ultimately my opinion is that Mancini and Fordham are slam dunks for the PL, but they can only ever carry a minimal sporting sanction as Mancini is immaterial and Fordham was never concealed.

The interesting question is why the PL didn’t just stick with these 2x + non compliance which likely could’ve been wrapped up by now…perhaps the juice wasn’t worth the squeeze for ‘only’ those charges.

If it's that easy to prove concealment then either prove it or fuck off

 

[Lomaxtheworst]

It's 5, although you could argue it should be 6, as they've combined the payments to Mancini and the players' image rights into one charge.

 

[KS55]

A fundamental error on their part, with the sole intention of making a bigger splash. They've created a legal behemoth that they now have to prove.

If I were our defence team, I would certainly encourage the tribunal to consider this as a pointer to bad faith by the PL. “He who comes to equity must come with clean hands.”