It is not a public enquiry but a private arbitration of a civil dispute. Don’t mix the two up.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules
- Thread starter ayrshire_blue
- Start date
deano ou812
Well-Known Member
Ahhh yes the old exemptions,once they are taken into account then everything will be ok,just like the Covid allowance’s.
If I was Everton,Forest and even Leicester I’d be keeping an eye on this and see how the premier league actually deal with it,wouldn’t be holding my breath it’s one rule for some while the rest just have to suck it up or otherwise know your place ..
The accusation would be one of uttering false accounts contrary to Company law rather than tax fraud. Didn’t Tesco fall foul of this a few years ago?I wonder if the HMRC would even be interested given that we are accused of putting more money into the club rather than hiding it. If anything we would be paying more tax by stating our turnover is bigger than it actually is. I’m not an expert in this field as you may tell.
I think you can assume Pannick and others have blocked out 2024 for some time - probably since May/June. Won't confirm exact kick off. If the hearing really is 10-12 weeks, skeleton drafting and witness cross examination plans would have been taking a huge amount of time. And of course all of June was taken with the APT case which we know Pannick was also on.Why doesn’t somebody give the Chambers of Lord Pannick a quick call and see when he is next free.
If it’s late December then we know its started.
I’m joking in case anybody thinks this is real !
I'm confident it will leak when the hearing kicks off in person.
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 10,939
I don’t and they’re fair comments. Ive just read on here multiple times (by several posters) that we would never provide them with commercially sensitive material.
I don't think it's anything to do with commercial sensitivity. The club were required by the courts to provide everything the PL asked for provided it was within the scope of their investigation (grosso modo). I doubt very much the club didn't comply with that requirement. But that doesn't mean the club was prevented from challenging the PL on their requests and it certainly doesn't mean that the PL could get information from third parties. I am guessing the non-cooperation takes three forms: taking all action possible to delay the investigation; challenging requests for information from inside the company; and not providing information from external parties.
Back to your question. When you are facing a hostile investigation, and after the UEFA investigation and verdict I think there is no doubt that is how it would be judged by the club, you do everything you can to limit the information you give to the investigators. Why? To slow them down, to make them as uncomfortable as possible and to control the flow of information yourself. If the club would have volunteered information in good faith the PL would undoubtedly have had to investigate that information further and, most likely, ask for more. It would be never ending and there may be other things they could find that they may not like. No, you want to control the information flow yourself. In this case by only providing what you think you have to, and then providing what you want to at the right time. In front of the panel.
One of the reasons I am so confident in the club's position is that they have cleverly forced the PL into this disciplinary process by withholding external information so they can effectively decide what external information to provide, knowing what evidence the PL has. They are controlling the information flow to a very large extent. If they were in the least worried they would have provided the information and settled a long time ago.
If they had the evidence why did they wait 5 years to bring charges?
I assume they collated more evidence, there is also degrees as to what that evidence shows.
If it was 100% clear then your point is valid, but if not it would make sense for them to continue to collate.
My q was more if they have none, what are we doing for 12 weeks
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 10,939
Oooo. Ziegler getting some teeth. Making Everton froth at the mouth when United get away with it. Good work.
mexico1970
Well-Known Member
When are they coming out of the room? When is the smoke going to appear at the chimney?
UEFA had none, per CAS.
But was only a 3 day trail not 12 weeks, so makes sense they had very little but likewise makes sense PL have a lot (whether it proves anything is debatable, but there must be much more to discuss).
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 10,939
I assume they collated more evidence, there is also degrees as to what that evidence shows.
If it was 100% clear then your point is valid, but if not it would make sense for them to continue to collate.
My q was more if they have none, what are we doing for 12 weeks
They clearly have a lot more "evidence" over many more years. The CAS hearing was about 2 allegations, one for four years and one for two years. That is six breaches in PL "language". And it took three days. The PL has made around 120 allegations so it should take 20 times as long, which is 60 days,which is 12 weeks. Hopelessly estimated, of course, but it shows that 10-12 weeks isn't excessive even if the case is as simple as at CAS.