PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[petrusha]

petrusha

That IMO applies even if the lawyers on here, including me, have overstated and overestimated the effect of the need for cogency in terms of the standard of proof given the nature of the charges. (I don't think we have.)

Thats an interesting point and something that I too have thought about.

It’s worth remembering that this isn’t a court of law although it’s run in accordance with English law.


Does that mean for instance that the rules of evidence apply in the Courts apply ? I don’t think they do.

I have attended a couple of cases before a Football tribunal of course they were no where near as complex as the city case and my club and solicitors thought the case was cast iron yet we lost them both.

I'm having a complicated afternoon and am under time pressure so have to be quick. Hope I don't come across as rude - not intentional if I do.

Obviously, we've discussed in some detail the issue of the need for cogency where dishonesty and deception are alleged and I've always believed it would apply here. I'm not a litigator, though, and some of the lawyers commenting on here are, so they're better placed to assess how to respond to the argument that the PL's Commission wouldn't be bound by that interpretation.

I'm not attempting to dodge the issue. Just hoping one of the chaps will step in and give you a better answer than I can give. If not, I'll try my best later but it could be tomorrow. :)

I think the opposite.

If the PL had significant evidence we wouldn't be here, we'd be talking about the implications of our punishment.

We're engaged in this farce precisely because they don't have the evidence.

City has consistently stated that this nonsense is nothing more than a campaign with a single purpose, to damage the reputation of the club. A campaign spearheaded by the usual suspects on the continent and closer to home in London and down the road, and nothing I've heard or read has convinced me otherwise.

Throw into the mix the PL desire to show they're capable of keeping their own house in order ahead of an independent regulator and it's a perfect win, win for our rivals. They manage to find something to hang us with and it's doubles all round, they don't and it doesn't matter, we're still dodgy and everyone knows it.

Just as there was no redemption for City after CAS, there'll be no redemption after this, regardless of the outcome.

This is politics, the process is the punishment, and the verdict is already in from the one court that matters, the one court they control absolutely, the court of public opinion.

You've taken a step forward from me, though. My starting point is how one would expect a reputable regulator to conduct itself when acting reasonably and in good faith.

You're saying that the PL as a regulator isn't conducting itself reasonably and in good faith. As I say, the information to say that with certainty isn't in the public domain. However, it's certainly an explanation for the dichotomy I outlined, and probably the only explanation that's possible other than MCFC being wholly wrong in their statements.

Your inference will be one that's regarded among City fans, including me, as plausible. It will inevitably be dismissed in other quarters, though.

 

[BrianW]

 

[journolud]

Plus the other 900 years?

Ah yes my maths. I wouldn’t have got that bit of accounting past UEFA or the PL

 

[StillBluessinceHydeRoad]

Thanks for that reminder about debt SB.
I was not aware of the legal restriction you mention and the absence of a "sporting exception" so thanks for that information.
Perhaps we signed away something we were legally entitled to?

City haven't challenged the validity of FFP but I think the law still remains the law. Opinion from many law schools abounded in the months after UEFA adopted the regulations and they all agreed that it was very vulnerable to a legal challenge. When the ECJ gave its judgement on the Bosman case it warned UEFA that judgements in all future cases would be according to the law and not what UEFA considered to be best for its view of football's interests ... law in the case of investment states quite baldly that any attempt to prohibit it or limit it is forbidden and that any sanctions imposed to prohibit or limit it are not valid. Doesn't leave much wriggle room for UEFA? But City "took the pinch" rather than become involved in a lengthy process.

 

[Bandofblues]

He's an EvertonIan.

Ah, so they've finally 'been informed'

 

[terraloon]

That's another of the things I am having trouble reconciling. If the issue was fraudulently hiding Mancini's second contract from the PL (not from the signed, audited annual accounts because it isn't material enough to affect the true and fair view given by the signed, audited annual accounts), then why on God's green earth would the payments be made from MCFC bank accounts? I suppose Mansour has enough cash of his own if he wants to pay Mancini out of the books of ADUG.

Also, if the AJ payments were actually made through MCFC bank accounts, they were presumably recorded as costs by MCFC (where else could they have been?). So the annual accounts presumably included the full cost of Mancini's remuneration from both contracts. Pretty strange behaviour for someone trying to hide something. (I suppose the payments could have been set up as a receivable from ADUG and been reimbursed, but it is rather strange behaviour to have the payments coming in and out three times if you are trying to hide them).

To summarise, if the motive wasn't fraudulently hiding disclosure of the second contract (and if it was, management did a piss-poor job), it is time barred.

I am not sure there is going to be anything in this one, either.

The inference from those emails is that City then drew down funds to contra the money paid out under the separate contract.

The mangers contract with City would of course been lodged with the PL but why would you expect City to lodge a contract that was with a third party?

The PLs argument no doubt would be that they had no knowledge of the second contract to the hacked emails came out and there is no way that the PL would be looking at source accounting information unless they had opened an investigation

In your summary you haven’t measured the issue, as you detail it against all three of the exclusions namely fraud, concealment or mistake.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

That’s quite interesting because I think that there were certain restrictions as to when Mancini could take up paid employment again following his pay off from Inter.

If I remember this correctly, he was in dispute with Inter over a pay-off but that agreement would ultimately depend on him getting new employment. In other words, he'd only get compensation for the amount of time he was not employed, which is pretty typical in these situations (unless you have a watertight agreement for a fixed sum).

When we approached him, he therefore settled quickly, as he would have been unable to take up new employment while still technically under contract to Inter.

And when he said his new contract (with City) was "6 months plus 3 years" that was taken as his poor English meaning three and a half years. But it was a six-month contract, with a further 3 year option.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Mistake then ?

:) How would that go? "Hey guys, remember those transactions we are fraudulently trying to hide from the PL? Yes, well we paid them by mistake out the MCFC bank accounts. And then we did it again and again. Multiple times. Silly us."

I think it's stretching credulity to think that these guys make mistakes like that.

Don't get me wrong, I am pretty sure Simon Pearce has done some things that he would like hidden. I just don't think for one minute that this guy, with the responsibilities he has, would still have them if he made dumbass mistakes like that.

Also, I doubt very much they do anything without getting legal and tax clearance first.

 

[cheekybids]

Not particularly no although it’s easy for many to take that view

It seems to me that the press in particular have so little news to report they latch onto a snippet and join dots but not in the right order.

I could point out many such instances re my club one of the very best examples revolved around FIFAs case which led to our one year transfer ban.The press used all sorts of phrases one of which was child trafficking yet had the youngsters been born in the EU then no charges would ever have been laid

There’s been a hate campaign organised against our club, players & fans. The persecution has gone beyond levels known of any other English club.

You’ve proved yourself to be “kfa” wind up merchant so I can’t take anything else serious.

 

[terraloon]

:) How would that go? "Hey guys, remember those transactions we are fraudulently trying to hide from the PL? Yes, well we paid them by mistake out the MCFC bank accounts. And then we did it again and again. Multiple times. Silly us."

I think it's stretching credulity to think that these guys make mistakes like that.

Don't get me wrong, I am pretty sure Simon Pearce has done some things that he would like hidden. I just don't think for one minute that this guy, with the responsibilities he has, would still have them if he made dumbass mistakes like that.

Also, I doubt very much they do anything without getting legal and tax clearance first.

Ok I will accept it wasn’t a mistake that would mean if the emails are telling the story correctly that it was deliberate now it’s just about how the circumstances are viewed.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

It is highly unlikely that City would have received sight of the evidence upon which the PL are relying at the time City made their statement.The charge sheet has provision for certain documents to be attached but it’s not mandatory
I would find it unimaginable that City would admit the charges be they guilty or not so the process then takes its course so Cities statement is measured and from my perspective almost certainly would had been drafted in advance
I know it fits a narrative but I just can’t see why the PL would have lodged frivolous charges from their perspective and based on history when then lodge charges they on balance end up proven

All the way through the CAS case people stressed that UEFA would not have sanctioned City unless they had a smoking gun. In fact they had virtually no evidence at all and that was made clear by the CAS statement. The case was a politically-motivated farce. What makes you think the PL would behave differently to UEFA? Do you really think Richard Masters is a man of integrity?

 

[Chris in London]

No but read the last paragraph of petsuras last post which is the point I am making

“I fully accept that the Commission will hear the evidence and decide on the limitation point. If that goes against City with respect to any matter, the club's case almost certainly fails as far as that issue is concerned. The converse is also true. I present it in that way because that's probably how the Commission will approach it, so it makes sense for me to do the same.”

In other words the commission will hear the evidence and not bar based on time

If the evidence is there to prove the PLs case then it can’t be time barred if it isn’t then time barring is not relevant

In UEFA statues they specifically bar matters based on time

No one has suggested the panel won't hear the evidence. The point that is being made is that for the alleged breaches outside the 6 year limit what the evidence has to establish for the PL to succeed is different because of the time bar. That applies to virtually all of the charges but there are a few that are not time barred (the very latest ones) so the test in relation to those is slightly different.

This is what I have said to you previously, so you don't have to look for it again.

"1. The arrangements between MCFC and the PL are essentially contractual, and subject to English law.

2. Unlike the UEFA rules, the PL rules do not include any limitation period. However, because the arrangements are subject to English law, the general limitation period of 6 years applies. See point 1.

3. The limitation period is however suspended in a case (I paraphrase in the interests of brevity) where fraud is alleged until the fraud comes to light. It is at that point that the 6 year period begins to run.

4. What this means is that if the PL can establish fraud, the 6 year period will not apply until the fraud came to light, which was the publication of the Der Spiegel articles in 2018.

5. To get over that hurdle, however, the PL needs to adduce very cogent evidence. And if they cannot, the ordinary 6 year rule will apply. See point 2.

6. For that reason, the charge of fraud is central to the case for two reasons: (a) because that is precisely what the PL is alleging, and (2) because if they cannot establish fraud, the complaints that pre-date 2017 (ie six years before the complaint was made) are time-barred."

Do you follow now? In relation to the charges concerning matters that are more than 6 years old, the evidence has to establish one of the three exceptions to the general 6 year rule - fraud, mistake or concealment. Nobody has suggested mistake (and the concept of mistake in law can be very different to what a layman might think of as a mistake). The issues are fraud and concealment, which in the circumstances of this case are the same thing. The PL has got to prove a deliberate intention on MCFC to withhold the truth when presenting their accounts. If if does not, the claims that relate to the period before 2017 will be statute barred.

A claim that an allegation that a claim is statute barred doesn't mean that the court won't hear the evidence, unless there is no possibility that one of the three exceptions applies. It just amounts to a complete defence to any claim that might be made, unless, as I say, one of the exceptions applies.

 

[Chris in London]

one thing that does concern me is this “balance of probability“ finding us guilty of something when there isn’t conclusive proof. A bit like i suddenly have a million pounds and a million pounds was stolen from my local bank a few weeks ago. There is nothing to link me with the robbery, I have no criminal record or criminal associates, but I won’t answer questions about how I came into possession of such a large amount of untraceable notes. Can I get banged up or have the money confiscated on balance of probability?

No.

The test is the balance of probability as it is in all non-criminal proceedings. What that means is that the tribunal has to think it is more likely than not. The point that needs to be borne in mind is that the more serious the allegation, the less likely it is that the thing being complained about was done, and so the more cogent the evidence needs to be that it was. So for instance, in your case, it's a serious allegation to say that you have stolen £1m. So there would need to be evidence beyond merely finding you with £1m in your possession.

 

[The perfect fumble]

It is highly unlikely that City would have received sight of the evidence upon which the PL are relying at the time City made their statement.

True...But...

City know the truth, you shouldn't overlook that. If this is all a crock of shit and City know it, it's immaterial what "evidence" the PL has, because the club knows it's all politically motivated nonsense. Soriano knows the PL doesn't have a smoking gun, and how does he know this? Because no gun exists! Coz if there was we wouldn't be contesting these charges we'd be plea bargaining.

It is highly unlikely that City would have received sight of the evidence upon which the PL are relying at the time City made their statement.The charge sheet has provision for certain documents to be attached but it’s not mandatory
I would find it unimaginable that City would admit the charges be they guilty or not so the process then takes its course so Cities statement is measured and from my perspective almost certainly would had been drafted in advance

City made reference to reputational damage when UEFA started their merry go round, but when the PL charges landed City issued this short sharp statement....

"Manchester City Football Club is surprised by the issuing of these alleged breaches of the Premier League rules, particularly given the extensive engagement and vast amount of detailed materials that the EPL has been provided with. The club welcomes the review of this matter by an independent Commission, to impartially consider the comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence that exists in support of its position.

"As such we look forward to this matter being put to rest once and for all."

The key word here is "impartially" meaning?....Free from political interference.

Soriano has being doing the rounds telling everyone it's all bollocks, of course he would, wouldn't he? Not necessarily, crisis management is more subtle than that and we're not seeing it here, it doesn't even look like defiance, it looks more like contempt. Soriano is so bullish because whatever the PL has he knows it's not the "evidence", and why is he so confident? Because he knows there's no evidence to be had, and how does he know that? Because there is no crime.

I repeat, we wouldn't be here now if the PL had its "evidence", there'd be no independent panel if they had a winning hand, if they had it they'd play it, and we'd be out on our arse licking our wounds after a good kicking.

but I just can’t see why the PL would have lodged frivolous charges from their perspective and based on history when then lodge charges they on balance end up proven

Precedent is no guide here, because this is unprecedented. A four year investigation and yet it has to go to an independent panel? An independent panel after four years? I repeat four years! All those years and Soriano isn't doing a perp walk! And why? Because right now the PL clearly doesn't have what it needs to bring home the guilty verdict it wants, otherwise it would. So I wouldn't live in fear that they'll spring a gotcha moment in these hearings, because if they could, they'd have done so already.

And let's not forget the timing of the charges, conveniently released just ahead of the white paper on the independent regulator. Nor should we forget that rushed incomprehensible charge sheet, issued with no pre-warning for City. A charge sheet consisting of little more than a confusing list of references, that had to be amended the afternoon of the morning it was issued! Then amended again two days later, and why did it look so rushed? After four years of painstaking meticulous investigation? It looked rushed because it was rushed, and why was it rushed?.....political expediency.

This has all the hallmarks of an organisation buckling under pressure from big beast bullies. If the PL have what you're suggesting they have, irrefutable dirt on the PL Champions no less! Then you wouldn't have this dogs dinner, not for a case this high profile, not after four years.

This investigation was dead and buried, it stinks coz it's rotten, dug up in a hurry by the PL under instruction from Yanky owners and our old friend Daniel Levy, there's no other plausible explanation.

 

[Rory Bluelow]

All the way through the CAS case people stressed that UEFA would not have sanctioned City unless they had a smoking gun. In fact they had virtually no evidence at all and that was made clear by the CAS statement. The case was a politically-motivated farce. What makes you think the PL would behave differently to UEFA? Do you really think Richard Masters is a man of integrity?

Spot on. UEFA had nothing save the hacked emails (& some of those had been “doctored”). Throughout the process, there were leaks to selected journalists like that moron Panja at the New York Times.
The Premier League itself was founded upon the greed of certain clubs, aided and abetted by an ex-Chairman of Spurs - who happened to make satellite receivers - and seemingly leaked details of the TV rights bidding process to Sky in order for them to win.
Or should I say win-win (££££££££££ Ker-ching).
Not much integrity around…

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

I understand why and how a City fan could and would feel like that.

If you look at most teams forum you will see that they think the media “ has it in for them”Look no further that Untold Arsenal referenced by MC18 a few days ago.

I am not naive enough to believe that clubs don’t get in the ears of the PLs CEO but the story about the charges is for me a little too far fetched in terms of how it happened and what was said during that meeting and the subsequent actions.

These charges revolve around some very complicated matters their Is a view that in the UEFA case the set themselves deadlines that ultimately worked against UEFAs ability to complete their own investigations.

I'm constantly amazed at the number of people who don't believe that the media indulges in systematic bias against certain clubs, when they absolutely do. I'm similarly amazed by those people who will acknowledge the possibility of political bias on the front pages of particular newspapers, but deny the same possibility when it comes to the back pages.
Just taking the Mail as an example, every article comes with a comments section. The paper's aim is to ensure that as many people as possible click on those articles, in order that they might maximise the advertising revenue central to their continued existence. It does this on the front pages by appealing to its largest readership demographic. Endless negative stories about lefties, teachers, lazy public servants, Meghan Markle, soft judges, asylum seekers, the cancel culture, 'militant' unions, remoaners, Gary Lineker etc etc are always the order of the day, because the Mail knows its foam flecked gammon army will hammer away with such fury that their keyboards will catch fire.
As to the back pages then, which two clubs have far and away the biggest fan bases in this country? And which club do you think is an oven ready enemy for both, having deprived them of hundreds of millions in prize money and trophies since 2011? Once you've joined the dots by answering those two questions, the penny should drop. City have been portrayed as football ruining, cheating, nouveau riche, sportswashing, plastic, no European pedigree, obscene spending (complete with squad cost comparisons, once famously when we weren't even one of the teams playing), human rights abusing, dodgy Arab owned, corrupt, 'dirty' oil money funded, success buying filth, non-stop for 15 years now, and our 'guilt' as regards the current PL investigation has long since been declared as fact.
Other papers, most notably the Guardian, have clear editorial policies when it comes to City and I defy you to find a single article from Miguel Delaney, Barney Ronay, Jonathan Liew etc that doesn't contain at least one of the phrases "state owned project", "oil funded" or "sportswashing". I've seen other journalists call our fans 'grubby apologists' and 'filthy rats', I've seen domestic broadcasters stuff their panels with rag pundits for our European games and listened to them call us mercenaries and wait until the half time interval to pan the camera around the crowd and sneer at us for having empty seats, and I've turned on the radio and heard us called "disgusting" and a "Frankenstein club". It's been relentless and no other club has ever had to put up with an onslaught of even remotely comparable degree. It doesn't mean that all journalists and broadcasters are out to get us, but compared to our immediate rivals we're a country mile ahead in the vilification stakes

 

[kaz7]

This thread is repetiton and the chav repeating himself and not listening , is there any actual news ?

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

Mistake then ?

For someone else to prove!

 

[halfcenturyup]

The PLs issue is that individuals have contracts elsewhere they have a rule that all any money paid by a club to a manager / a player has to be paid through the clubs payroll in line with the contract.
The charge therefore is that part of his City pay package was routed through another club. In a way it’s the same charge re the Image rights issue.
Irrespective if that was the case or not, and assuming it wasn’t, it was naive for City senior staff to be anywhere near this and as for it being paid via a city bank account that was sloppy

As I understand it, P7.1 requires a manager contract to contain all his remuneration and bik. I take this to mean between the club and the manager. I am not sure it refers to "through the payroll"? P7.2 requires disclosure to the PL of any other income earned by the manager from "other persons". So between P7.1 and P7.2 they should get visibility on all the manager's income from wherever it comes. There is no requirement as far as I can see for all the manager's income to be in the signed, audited annual accounts. In fact, that wouldn't make any sense.

 

[manimanc]

This thread needs a new title.

"Chelsea loon won't let it lie, keeps repeating himself over and over and over despite being told there isn't anything happening"

@terraloon give it a fuckin break now you're sounding a complete turnip.