PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[manimanc]

For all intents and purposes he had two contracts . I don’t think there is any dispute both as I understand singed in December 2009.
Ok in terms of the legal entity that is City Group the UAE club isn’t in it but in terms of ownership and or control they would group it with City
I maintain my stance re taxation

Why are you so interested in us?

You're putting a lot of posts in here, i haven't read all of them but you obviously have an unhealthy interest in city.

Do you know chelsea are playing?

I just don't get it unless you're doing it to take the piss and have a dig

 

[Wardley Blue]

Bless you.

If I said people giving evidence in English I didn’t mean to but the likelihood is that will be the case.But it’s a fact that the panel almost certainly will have English as their first language.

UEFA are governed by Swiss Law the PL arent. Also it’s worth noting that CAS carried out an arbitration function under Swiss Law.

The Swiss law and English law had nothing to do with time barring that was a UEFA issue no such issue exists in the PL rulebook.

The Premier league FFP rules started in 2013. Surely we can not be guilty of anything earlier because these rules did not exist then. So time barring shouldn't come into the conversation regarding anything prior to 2013.

 

[Chris in London]

Hope the missus is ok. Agree with all your posts generally.

Personally, I don’t read much into the Note 4 point. The clubs audited financial statements are bound to match in whichever versions/supplemental notes are given to the PL and UEFA (although reading CAS it does seem that the information given pursuant to Article 47 was not just the stat accounts).

I wouldn’t hold out too much hope on appeal on point of law. Firstly, the points of law on dishonesty are settled - this is going to be fact and evidence heavy in any findings (as was CAS albeit on far less evidence than here). Second, s.69(1) doesn’t seem to apply to PL arbitration. View attachment 71723

On the appeal point, as I understand it there is a right of appeal from the independent panel that will decide the case to an independent appeal board. That is an appeal either on the merits, on a point of law or against sentence (as I read rule W62).

The next avenue of challenge (I deliberately refrain from using the word 'appeal' in this context) is via arbitration - rule X3. As I read that, it basically limits challenges to an Appeal Board's decision to points of law (including a challenge that the decision below is Wednesbury unreasonable).

It is from that arbitration that there can be no further appeal on a point of law as rule X37 makes clear. (Perversely, the rule then goes on to talk about a challenge to the arbitration award, but presumably rule X37 would be its defence to an appeal under the Arbitration Act.)

So, in layman's terms, there is a right of appeal against the decision, and there is a further 'appeal' on a point of law, but no appeal beyond that. Do you agree with that?

 

[Johnny Mars Bar]

By all accounts, that's precisely what we did :)

Good. I hope we did. Treble it.

 

[WRicko]

There isn’t any income tax on individuals in the UAE . But re read my previous comments on this as I believe it was an company registered in Italy that invoiced and almost certainly accounted for the money under the Italian tax regime

Well how was he paid for his job at city ?

 

[Leech]

How can it be that only one person on the panel needs a legal qualification?

Especially so, when the panel is being picked on behalf of the Premier League.

That certainly stinks.

Does the method for selecting the panel members not follow the same process as for when Newcastle United were intending to challenge the Premier League's blocking of their takeover i.e. one panel member is chosen by the Premier League, one is chosen by the club, then the final member (also the chair) is mutually agreed between both parties?

 

[chesterbells]

If you look at the vast bulk of my postings on this issue I have not really gone into the sponsorship issue because quite honestly I don’t know nor , in my opinion is the CAS ruling quite as clear cut as some feel.
I fell a little more informed when it comes to remuneration and indeed not assisting but sorry I just don’t subscribe to any claims re Xenophobia

Have you ever posted on any other thread? Genuine apologies if you’ve already explained your pattern of posting on here previously.

 

[Stoned Rose]

Regarding the alleged Mancini contracts, were the hacked emails ever shown? I can only find:-

"According to Der Spiegel, citing documents the Guardian has not seen or been able to verify, City executives agreed a deal whereby the holding company that controlled City, the Abu Dhabi United Group, would circulate funds to Al Jazira which would then be paid back to Mancini via an offshore company in Mauritius named Sparkleglow Holdings."

from a Guardian article.

Sparkleglow Holdings sounds like a Fall b-side.

 

[slbsn]

On the appeal point, as I understand it there is a right of appeal from the independent panel that will decide the case to an independent appeal board. That is an appeal either on the merits, on a point of law or against sentence (as I read rule W62).

The next avenue of challenge (I deliberately refrain from using the word 'appeal' in this context) is via arbitration - rule X3. As I read that, it basically limits challenges to an Appeal Board's decision to points of law (including a challenge that the decision below is Wednesbury unreasonable).

It is from that arbitration that there can be no further appeal on a point of law as rule X37 makes clear. (Perversely, the rule then goes on to talk about a challenge to the arbitration award, but presumably rule X37 would be its defence to an appeal under the Arbitration Act.)

So, in layman's terms, there is a right of appeal against the decision, and there is a further 'appeal' on a point of law, but no appeal beyond that. Do you agree with that?

Yes that is how I read the Rules except the arbitration can only consider a "perverse interpretation of the law" (X.4.4.) which is, I think, more than a mere error on a point of law. So, presumably we agree, all of X.4 make getting to arbitration unlikely.



So really, I think, we are talking about an in-house appeal under W62 as you suggest.



The point I was focussing on in the original post was the idea that there is a route into the English Courts to challenge on a point of law. That doesn't seem to exist in any scenario.

 

[BeerIsTheBest]

How can it be that only one person on the panel needs a legal qualification?

Especially so, when the panel is being picked on behalf of the Premier League.

That certainly stinks.

Tolm
You were bullish a while back with your insight that the club is insistent that 95 per cent of the shit thrown at the wall is in triplicate and the majority of it will be dismissed on the first day. Given your comment above regarding the constitution of the panel do you know if the club remains as positive.