PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Man_City_Loyal]

He's been Talksported.
He had to fall in line with their anti city, lying propaganda guff.
Shame as he always talks positive of us.

noticed a change in some of the stuff he says.

 

[blueparrot]

noticed a change in some of the stuff he says.

Like what, think he's said pretty much exactly the same all the way through. To the point keep asking him becomes tedious.

 

[mancboy]

An e-mail suggesting something has been done proves nothing about deliberate concealment, fraud or the covering up of an error. Surely the PL would have to prove it to the required standard for it to remove the limitation?

Or are you saying it's a chicken and egg question. The panel would have to fully assess each allegation to see if, say, fraud was committed so that they can say whether a particular allegation is time limited or not? So if it isn't fraudulent, say, an older allegation is time limited and if it is fraudulent, say, the limitation is removed?

Just trying to understand your point.

A digital communication suggesting something happen could never seriously be taken as proof if said action taking place without other evidence to back it up, if it could 95% of x users would be banged up along with most of this forum.

 

[halfcenturyup]

I've just been looking at the rules we're alleged to have infringed in (as a specimen) 2012/13. That covers the Mancini contract and the sponsorship issues.

There are five rules mentioned:
B16: "...each Club shall behave towards each other Club and the League with the utmost good faith."
That's really pretty subjective, unless the PL can prove that we deliberately deceived them.

E3: "Each Club shall by 1st March in each Season submit to the Secretary a copy of its
annual accounts in respect of its most recent financial year ... to be prepared and audited in
accordance with applicable legal and regulatory requirements) together with a
copy of the directors’ report for that year and a copy of the auditors’ report on
those accounts."
I find it hard to imagine we didn't do that.

E4: The accounts referred to in Rule E.3 shall:
E.4.1. include separate disclosure within the balance sheet or notes to the
accounts, or by way of supplementary information separately reported on
by its auditors by way of procedures specified by the Board, of the totalsums
payable and receivable in respect of Compensation Fees, Contingent Sums
and Loan Fees;
E.4.2. include a breakdown within the profit and loss account or the notes to the
accounts, or by way of supplementary information separately reported on
by its auditors by way of procedures specified by the Board, of revenue in
appropriate categories such as gate receipts, sponsorship and advertising,
broadcasting rights, commercial income and other income.

I guess you pressed send before you finished, but yes, I came to the conclusion a long time ago that the first tranche of rules that the allegations cover, as you allude to, are pretty innocuous. Also the heading for that tranche doesn't make any sense "complete and accurate information that shows a true and fair view": any accountant knows that is nonsense.

However, imo, the combination of those rules together with the "not acting in good faith" rule gives them more than enough scope for their allegations, which effectively amount to fraud. For example: Yes, the club filed the accounts with a true and fair opinion, but the club acted in bad faith because the directors knew the accounts didn't give a true and fair view. That is what they have to prove to land the most serious charges.

 

[blue b4 the moon]

He was being a little mischievous about the quality of the independent panel which won't help those on here of a more nervous disposition. But, as always, the outcome will depend on the evidence of the two parties (presumably clearly in the club's favour) and the ability of the two sets of lawyers (at worst a score draw). I wouldn't worry about the panel members, Rosen will put his strongest team on it.

Edit: I just had a look at the three members of the initial Leicester panel: O'Leary, Hunt and Odogwu. Very much a B team. The three members of the appeals board, on the other hand, were two judges and a KC. I suppose you get what you pay for.

Edit 2: This Leicester fiasco is a bit of a black eye for Rosen, imho. He won't be making the same mistake again.

The first panel were ex-players?

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I guess you pressed send before you finished, but yes, I came to the conclusion a long time ago that the first tranche of rules that the allegations cover, as you allude to, are pretty innocuous. Also the heading for that tranche doesn't make any sense "complete and accurate information that shows a true and fair view": any accountant knows that is nonsense.

However, imo, the combination of those rules together with the "not acting in good faith" rule gives them more than enough scope for their allegations, which effectively amount to fraud. For example: Yes, the club filed the accounts with a true and fair opinion, but the club acted in bad faith because the directors knew the accounts didn't give a true and fair view. That is what they have to try and prove.

Yes I hit send too early. I've completed the post now.

 

[GortonBlue62]

There's always been an issue with the framing of the PL rules, particularly the finance ones. One example is the requirement to submit "accurate accounts". There is no such concept in accounting though. There is the 'true and fair' requirement but nothing specifying accuracy. Of course, you can equate the two concepts but if you take the issue of Etihad sponsorship, if we receive £60m from Etihad, and record £60m revenue then you could argue that's 'accurate', regardless of the source of the money.

However if we receive £60m and we know £50m of that came from Sheikh Mansour, yet record it as all coming from Etihad as sponsorship, then that could potentially infringe the concept of 'true and fair'.

It's like the offside and handball laws; the more they tweak and piss about with them, the further they get away from their key objectives and the more the potential for interpretation or misinterpretation.

And to be clear, with respect to that second paragraph, you're of the opinion that City have satisfied the 'true and fair' requirement?

(Assuming the PL don't have a smoking gun).

 

[BerkshireBlue]

An e-mail suggesting something has been done proves nothing about deliberate concealment, fraud or the covering up of an error. Surely the PL would have to prove it to the required standard for it to remove the limitation?

Or are you saying it's a chicken and egg question. The panel would have to fully assess each allegation to see if, say, fraud was committed so that they can say whether a particular allegation is time limited or not? So if it isn't fraudulent, say, an older allegation is time limited and if it is fraudulent, say, the limitation is removed?

Just trying to understand your point.

yeah it's your second paragragh.

If a document exists that suggests some kind of dishonesty or concealment it gives the PL the opportunity to question whether limitation applies and the only way to find that out is by the IC listening and reading to all the "evidence" the PL has. So the whole evidence will be considered regardless. It won't be as, people seem to think, well this charge is over 6 years ago so lets not even bother going over it.

Whether the PL have strong enough evidence to remove the limitation is the question and nobody knows that yet. They might have, they might not.

 

[Invisible Man's Bandage]

Telegraph headline this morning.
View attachment 130882

The article is using the reduced costs that Everton now have to pay as a guideline for our case. For example, the PL spent an average of 26k per document whereas it was £515 for Everton. The PL hourly cost for lawyers was double Everton's. They are saying as our case is infinitely more complex than the Everton one then the PL will be spending tens of millions which they may well not get back even if they win.

 

[halfcenturyup]

The first panel were ex-players?

It certainly seems like it. I have heard our panel is Neville, Carragher and Aldridge.

;)