PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

@BerkshireBlue: I hope the IC agrees with your assessment. My reasoning regarding Mancini's situation is this: given that the charges were announced in February 2023, the Statute of Limitations (SoL) must be considered by the IC. The consultancy contract, in my view, was neither criminal nor mistaken — but was it concealed?

We could argue that, since there were no specific rules in the Premier League handbook (circa 2008) requiring a club to report contracts between its parent company (ADUG) and a club employee (Mancini), there was no concealment in our accounts. If there was no criminality, no mistakes, and no concealment, then the issue should be time-barred.

The Premier League could counter with an argument of "not acting in good faith," which carries non-sporting sanctions if the IC agrees.

Of course, I'm not a lawyer, but I'd love to know if my reasoning is flawed — or perhaps, not?
Your reasoning seems logical to me.
 
It's the only hope they have of any success.

Imagine being that shit, they are relying on City losing a court hearing for something to cheer about.

Absolute nuggets!!!

It's pathetic. All these clubs could spend what they wanted ....and did...until we became a threat. They were the epitome of clubs buying success, especially the rags. Spend spend spend until finally after after 25 years they eventually won the league again.
I like the way they call it cheating. It's not. Even if we DID cock up a few accounts we won everything on the field where it counts. We didn't hack anybody's database or get special treatment from the premier league to pass psr. Now THAT is cheating.
 
@BerkshireBlue: I hope the IC agrees with your assessment. My reasoning regarding Mancini's situation is this: given that the charges were announced in February 2023, the Statute of Limitations (SoL) must be considered by the IC. The consultancy contract, in my view, was neither criminal nor mistaken — but was it concealed?

We could argue that, since there were no specific rules in the Premier League handbook (circa 2008) requiring a club to report contracts between its parent company (ADUG) and a club employee (Mancini), there was no concealment in our accounts. If there was no criminality, no mistakes, and no concealment, then the issue should be time-barred.

The Premier League could counter with an argument of "not acting in good faith," which carries non-sporting sanctions if the IC agrees.

Of course, I'm not a lawyer, but I'd love to know if my reasoning is flawed — or perhaps, not?

That's pretty much it, I think. Not sure the PL can use the "good faith" rule in Mancini's case as they haven't specifically referred to that rule in connection with the Mancini breaches, just for filing incorrect accounts up to 2018 and non-cooperation after 2018.

Doesn't matter, though, I think everyone agrees Mancini is most probably time limited.
 
It's pathetic. All these clubs could spend what they wanted ....and did...until we became a threat. They were the epitome of clubs buying success, especially the rags. Spend spend spend until finally after after 25 years they eventually won the league again.
I like the way they call it cheating. It's not. Even if we DID cock up a few accounts we won everything on the field where it counts. We didn't hack anybody's database or get special treatment from the premier league to pass psr. Now THAT is cheating.
Pathetic is right. Were the rags who smashed their way into the swamp and got a game postponed, protesting about City’s alleged rule breaking? No, they were protesting because they are shit and run like a chip shop. But every one of them will tell you now that City are to blame for all the ills of the world. The scousers are the same. Total deflection.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.