PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[BerkshireBlue]

I don’t agree that’s the test. The PL have to prove the consultancy was actually part of his employment with MCFC and, therefore, that the consultancy was a sham and the contract disclosed under the relevant rule was also incomplete. I don’t even think they need to show financial benefit to City although that would help prove it by explaining why City would create a sham. Remember the burden is on the PL - if they can’t prove it was a sham (Mancini for one says it was not), then it will be time barred anyway in all likelihood.

Also don't forget City also have another avenue of attack even if the PL has concrete proof of it being a scam. If City can prove the PL knew about it 6 years before the charge date then they are screwed no matter what. City also have all the PL's emails and documents as well remember. I'd actually quite like this scenario as it will just piss everyone off. Beautiful stuff.

 

[cheekybids]

You are responsible for your own costs but you may (usually will) if successful get an order that the other side should pay your costs. That however doesn’t mean the other side will pay all your costs, simply that proportion the court thinks was reasonably incurred. So if spend £1m pursuing a case and are awarded costs of 50K you have to pay the rest yourself.

If the PL spent £10m pursuing Everton and only recovered £1.7m that could be said to be eye-watering

If the legal bills are paid by the shareholders are we looking at a scenario that it pushes clubs over PSR or will that be deductible. £2m for all clubs & £35m for the Rags.

 

[Kinkybyname]

in independent scientific tests recently, Kyle Walker scored an incredible 115 IQ proving that he is, in fact, incredibly bright.

That is just so fucking spooky.
Wow.

that's his sperm count

 

[Paladin]

Difficult to see how a simple failure to provide accounts isn’t time-barred in any event

Plus they would have punished us for that thirteen years ago, and not left it until now.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

I,J,K,L,M,N - 5 letters.

My favourite ever clue, courtesy of Araucaria a long time ago.

 

[KS55]

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 total sums
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."

E11 & E12 require clubs to submit future financial information by 31 March, prepared on the same basis as the annual accounts.

So unless we refused to provide annual accounts and future financial information, apart from the specific mention of a breakdown of revenue to include sponsorship & advertising, there seems to be very little substance to the actual rules themselves and there is nothing about expenses (i.e. manager remuneration).

That reinforces Stefan's point that, if the IC interpret the rules as written, we couldn't have broken any rules around Mancini's Al Jazira contract as there were no rules to break.

I picked up a little vibe from somewhere that we baulked at future financial info due to leaks. I can’t remember where I saw that or whether it seemed kosher.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

@BerkshireBlue you’re arguing with someone who will intellectually decapitate you.

I’ve often wondered how that must feel.

 

[halfcenturyup]

I picked up a little vibe from somewhere that we baulked at future financial info due to leaks. I can’t remember where I saw that or whether it seemed kosher.

Future financial information is a routine annual requirement. I can't imagine the club didn't comply.

 

[Coatigan]

Unfortunately, the linked article is behind a paywall.

Maybe that's exactly what they Want us to think!

 

[halfcenturyup]

I’ve often wondered how that must feel.

I have frequently spared you that embarrassment.