PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[SilverFox2]

If (and that is a massive if) the case does go against us, does anyone think that City have managed to dig up enough dirt on the Premier League, The FA and other clubs, especially those who pushed the Premier League into bring those charges, to launch a devastating shit bomb upon them and bring the whole structure and hierachy of the Premier League crashing down around them? And if we did had enough shit on other clubs and the PL, are they shit scared of finding City guilty and are in fact looking for and possibly negotiating a deal to save their skins but we are not buying it?

As I understand it, the Panel will have to legally justify any "guilty as charged" decision.
If so the KCs involved are unlikely to risk their legal standing simply to appease a biased Judgement.
If they can legally prove City have been lying that makes all of us mugs for believing Mr K..

 

[KS55]

If (and that is a massive if) the case does go against us, does anyone think that City have managed to dig up enough dirt on the Premier League, The FA and other clubs, especially those who pushed the Premier League into bring those charges, to launch a devastating shit bomb upon them and bring the whole structure and hierachy of the Premier League crashing down around them? And if we did had enough shit on other clubs and the PL, are they shit scared of finding City guilty and are in fact looking for and possibly negotiating a deal to save their skins but we are not buying it?

Fanciful.

 

[halfcenturyup]

If (and that is a massive if) the case does go against us, does anyone think that City have managed to dig up enough dirt on the Premier League, The FA and other clubs, especially those who pushed the Premier League into bring those charges, to launch a devastating shit bomb upon them and bring the whole structure and hierachy of the Premier League crashing down around them? And if we did had enough shit on other clubs and the PL, are they shit scared of finding City guilty and are in fact looking for and possibly negotiating a deal to save their skins but we are not buying it?

Naah. Not that.

But if the PL panel finds in favour of the PL, it doesn't stop there. Make no mistake, these allegations are a serious matter of financial irregularities and if they are "proven" they will be followed by criminal investigations. The result of the criminal investigations will be either prosecution or no prosecution. I can't see how anything could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt (unless in the hugely remote possibility that the club firstly did what was alleged and secondly were stupid enough to leave evidence lying around) so the outcome would be the same. In which case, would the PL want to "sacrifice" a club and the professional reputations of some very serious people, only then to have their decision "overturned" by the criminal courts? I can't see them wanting to take that risk, imho. One of the reasons I can't imagine the decision on the most serious allegations will be unfavourable to the club. There are many others.

Quite a hole the PL have dug for themselves with the idiot referral of all those allegations.

 

[TedofChume]

Naah. Not that.

But if the PL panel finds in favour of the PL, it doesn't stop there. Make no mistake, these allegations are a serious matter of financial irregularities and if they are "proven" they will be followed by criminal investigations. The result of the criminal investigations will be either prosecution or no prosecution. I can't see how anything could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt (unless in the hugely remote possibility that the club firstly did what was alleged and secondly were stupid enough to leave evidence lying around) so the outcome would be the same. In which case, would the PL want to "sacrifice" a club and the professional reputations of some very serious people, only then to have their decision "overturned" by the criminal courts? I can't see them wanting to take that risk, imho. One of the reasons I can't imagine the decision on the most serious allegations will be unfavourable to the club. There are many others.

Quite a hole the PL have dug for themselves with the idiot referral of all those allegations.

I don't think this is the case.

This is a civil matter going through a private arbitration process, usually that's enough. Whatever the panel decides, doesn't necessarily mean there will be a criminal investigation. Was Roy Keane criminally charged for assaulting Haaland? Firstly someone has to complain to the right body (I think the DTI or Companies House). It also has to be in the public interest and there has to be sufficient evidence to prove false accounting. Is it in the public interest to punish City twice for the same thing? Add to that directors very rarely get prosecuted for anything like this unless HMRC think they're owed money or someone has directly lost a lot of money.

The two allegations relate to sponsorship deals (being worth less than stated and/or not paid by the sponsors but paid by a third party) and other third parties paying staff extra money (Mancini and Toure). I'm not certain that either of these are crimes (unless there are tax implications) even if they are true (I'm not sure they breach Premier League rules either!)

I might be wrong about the above, but the government haven't lost any money (in fact might have to repay City VAT/corp tax paid if this was proven) and no one has been directly hurt by it, so why would a criminal investigation or case follow? Who would pursue it?

I am not aware of the criminal courts over turning civil cases like this because by their very nature they are separate matters, between separate parties and have different burdens of proof and different rules/laws to assess them. Different outcomes are common, even if the fundamental issue is the same.

At the end of the day all this really is is a contractual dispute.

So no I don't think it is a fait acompli that a criminal investigation would follow.

 

[Newman Noggs]

I don't think this is the case.

This is a civil matter going through a private arbitration process, usually that's enough. Whatever the panel decides, doesn't necessarily mean there will be a criminal investigation. Was Roy Keane criminally charged for assaulting Haaland? Firstly someone has to complain to the right body (I think the DTI or Companies House). It also has to be in the public interest and there has to be sufficient evidence to prove false accounting. Is it in the public interest to punish City twice for the same thing? Add to that directors very rarely get prosecuted for anything like this unless HMRC think they're owed money or someone has directly lost a lot of money.

The two allegations relate to sponsorship deals (being worth less than stated and/or not paid by the sponsors but paid by a third party) and other third parties paying staff extra money (Mancini and Toure). I'm not certain that either of these are crimes (unless there are tax implications) even if they are true (I'm not sure they breach Premier League rules either!)

I might be wrong about the above, but the government haven't lost any money (in fact might have to repay City VAT/corp tax paid if this was proven) and no one has been directly hurt by it, so why would a criminal investigation or case follow? Who would pursue it?

I am not aware of the criminal courts over turning civil cases like this because by their very nature they are separate matters, between separate parties and have different burdens of proof and different rules/laws to assess them. Different outcomes are common, even if the fundamental issue is the same.

At the end of the day all this really is is a contractual dispute.

So no I don't think it is a fait acompli that a criminal investigation would follow.

This is correct. I'd add that, if there were criminal allegations, the prosecuting authorities would not wait years for the civil action to be completed before starting an investigation.

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

I don't think this is the case.

This is a civil matter going through a private arbitration process, usually that's enough. Whatever the panel decides, doesn't necessarily mean there will be a criminal investigation. Was Roy Keane criminally charged for assaulting Haaland? Firstly someone has to complain to the right body (I think the DTI or Companies House). It also has to be in the public interest and there has to be sufficient evidence to prove false accounting. Is it in the public interest to punish City twice for the same thing? Add to that directors very rarely get prosecuted for anything like this unless HMRC think they're owed money or someone has directly lost a lot of money.

The two allegations relate to sponsorship deals (being worth less than stated and/or not paid by the sponsors but paid by a third party) and other third parties paying staff extra money (Mancini and Toure). I'm not certain that either of these are crimes (unless there are tax implications) even if they are true (I'm not sure they breach Premier League rules either!)

I might be wrong about the above, but the government haven't lost any money (in fact might have to repay City VAT/corp tax paid if this was proven) and no one has been directly hurt by it, so why would a criminal investigation or case follow? Who would pursue it?

I am not aware of the criminal courts over turning civil cases like this because by their very nature they are separate matters, between separate parties and have different burdens of proof and different rules/laws to assess them. Different outcomes are common, even if the fundamental issue is the same.

At the end of the day all this really is is a contractual dispute.

So no I don't think it is a fait acompli that a criminal investigation would follow.

Does that include defamation? I mean by accusing (and finding the club of guilty) of fraud arent they opening themselves up to a counter claim of talking bollocks? (Or whatever the legal term would be)

 

[KS55]

Does that include defamation? I mean by accusing (and finding the club of guilty) of fraud arent they opening themselves up to a counter claim of talking bollocks? (Or whatever the legal term would be)

Mr Masters, you are charged with talking bollocks and other high crimes and misdemeanours, how do you plead?
Masters: Not guilty by way of total incompetence.

 

[halfcenturyup]

I don't think this is the case.

This is a civil matter going through a private arbitration process, usually that's enough. Whatever the panel decides, doesn't necessarily mean there will be a criminal investigation. Was Roy Keane criminally charged for assaulting Haaland? Firstly someone has to complain to the right body (I think the DTI or Companies House). It also has to be in the public interest and there has to be sufficient evidence to prove false accounting. Is it in the public interest to punish City twice for the same thing? Add to that directors very rarely get prosecuted for anything like this unless HMRC think they're owed money or someone has directly lost a lot of money.

The two allegations relate to sponsorship deals (being worth less than stated and/or not paid by the sponsors but paid by a third party) and other third parties paying staff extra money (Mancini and Toure). I'm not certain that either of these are crimes (unless there are tax implications) even if they are true (I'm not sure they breach Premier League rules either!)

I might be wrong about the above, but the government haven't lost any money (in fact might have to repay City VAT/corp tax paid if this was proven) and no one has been directly hurt by it, so why would a criminal investigation or case follow? Who would pursue it?

I am not aware of the criminal courts over turning civil cases like this because by their very nature they are separate matters, between separate parties and have different burdens of proof and different rules/laws to assess them. Different outcomes are common, even if the fundamental issue is the same.

At the end of the day all this really is is a contractual dispute.

So no I don't think it is a fait acompli that a criminal investigation would follow.

"Overturning" was in inverted commas, as the criminal courts can't actually overturn a civil court judgement, of course.

I am surprised, though, that you think there wouldn't be a criminal investigation if it was found in a civil court that the directors had knowingly and deliberately filed fraudulently incorrect accounts for a decade. The idea that breaching the legal requirements of the Companies Acts isn't serious enough unless HMRC has been undercut is odd to me. All the major players are directors of other UK companies. There is no public interest in making sure they can't do this again, or that they are suitable to be in charge of a company?

You may be right. Just seems strange to me. I would have thought a criminal investigation would be inevitable ....

 

[petrusha]

This is correct. I'd add that, if there were criminal allegations, the prosecuting authorities would not wait years for the civil action to be completed before starting an investigation.

I know there are other considerations at play in terms of what criminal investigatory bodies do and don't investigate. However, even if one limits oneself to the quality of the evidence available in the public domain, there's no way they'd start looking at this seriously as a criminal case.

Unless there's compelling evidence available to the PL of which we remain unaware, it's hard to see them getting close to meeting even the civil standard of proof in terms of the charges against us. There's nothing that's public knowledge that might come close to satisfying the much more stringent criminal standard of proof with respect to the conduct of individuals involved in the matters covered by the accusations against MCFC. That being so, it's reason enough for any relevant criminal investigatory body to decline to go anywhere near it.

 

[halfcenturyup]

I know there are other considerations at play in terms of what criminal investigatory bodies do and don't investigate. However, even if one limits oneself to the quality of the evidence available in the public domain, there's no way they'd start looking at this seriously as a criminal case.

Unless there's compelling evidence available to the PL of which we remain unaware, it's hard to see them getting close to meeting even the civil standard of proof in terms of the charges against us. There's nothing that's public knowledge that might come close to satisfying the much more stringent criminal standard of proof with respect to the conduct of individuals involved in the matters covered by the accusations against MCFC. That being so, it's reason enough for any relevant criminal investigatory body to decline to go anywhere near it.

On the basis of what we know at the moment, there is no way that the panel will find in favour of the PL on the most serious issues. So the whole thing is moot, really, but what we are discussing at the moment is what happens if the PL does have something we don't know about and the panel finds in favour of the PL.

It seems to me, at the very least, in view of the public interest in the case, the profile of the individuals involved, their other shareholdings and directorships and the egregious nature of the conduct there would have to be an investigation to determine if there is enough evidence for a Companies Acts prosecution.

If there isn't, it reflects badly on the panel's judgement, irrespective of the different burdens of proof (talk about a "technicality"). If there is, but the prosecution fails, likewise. Which is (one of) the reason(s) why I think the panel finding in favour of the PL on the most serious issues is very unlikely unless they really have a slam dunk that will hold up to the higher burden. It won't be painted like that, of course, but there cogency-o-meter will be at atmospheric levels, I think.

But ...

wtf do I know

Edit: Good to have you around, btw. Hope everything is good with you and yours.