PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Len Rum said:
That sums it up pretty well.
My view is based on the premise that to be found guilty of unlawful activity this has to based on a judgement in a court of law on the criteria of beyond reasonable doubt and not under the rules of a members club.
So logically IMO it would then follow that most of the charges against City are time barred I.e. being more than six years old and not deemed unlawful.
However I am not a lawyer and something tells me if it was this obvious then City's lawyers would have had most of the charges thrown out already.
Click to expand...

I suppose the statute of limitations will be the first matter considered by the panel which will force the PL to say clearly whether they think there has been action which opens up the earlier years. That's when the fun starts, I imagine. Like you I am not a lawyer, but I am (or have been) an accountant and I can't see that flying for the PL in all honesty.
 
Centurions said:
It obviously can't be 51-49 as there's only three of them but what I can guarantee with no proof whatsoever is that there will be no "tampering".

Long drawn out? Definitely, but I've got no worries on the result no matter how long it takes.
Click to expand...
Obviously with three people it 2-1 or 3-0 but the balance of probabilities I was referring to was the individual reasoning of each member.
City objecting to one Gunner on the panel would suggest ‘tampering’ admittedly for the want of a better word, is on our minds.
 
I studied law for a year (as a part of an accountancy course, i know i know). Enough to know that I'm nowhere near qualified to even hold a worthwhile opinion.

It seems to me that once the charges were made, they would then need to back them up with some semblance of facts to support the charges. Presumably that has happened. If so have those facts ever been made public?
 
Lord Blue said:
I studied law for a year (as a part of an accountancy course, i know i know). Enough to know that I'm nowhere near qualified to even hold a worthwhile opinion.

It seems to me that once the charges were made, they would then need to back them up with some semblance of facts to support the charges. Presumably that has happened. If so have those facts ever been made public?
Click to expand...

No. It's all being held in private. Afaik, the first we will know is when it is all decided.
 
Winchester said:
Thicko here...
Can someone explain
What bearing does the suspension jail sentence have on City and the FFP Situation now?
Click to expand...
None of the charges against Pinto related to City though of course the English press tried hard to link us to the case, especially the BBC, who appear to have now ignored the verdict, presumably because it doesn't suit their narrative.
 
Last edited:
Lord Blue said:
I studied law for a year (as a part of an accountancy course, i know i know). Enough to know that I'm nowhere near qualified to even hold a worthwhile opinion.

It seems to me that once the charges were made, they would then need to back them up with some semblance of facts to support the charges. Presumably that has happened. If so have those facts ever been made public?
Click to expand...
The "facts" have always been the widely reported email leaks. Unless there is some other evidence that us and the club have been blindsided by (witnesses, whistle blowers etc which seems highly unlikely) then its all pretty much in the public domain.
 
feedmpenzaandhewillscore said:
Example the CFA cost £200 to build hasn’t it raised over £400 million in transfer fees since it’s creation. So more than paid for itself. City are a supremely well run football club.
Click to expand...
I also wonder how much all that land in Beswick and Ancoats is worth these days. It was the deal of the century for Sheikh Mansour.
 
Lord Blue said:
I studied law for a year (as a part of an accountancy course, i know i know). Enough to know that I'm nowhere near qualified to even hold a worthwhile opinion.

It seems to me that once the charges were made, they would then need to back them up with some semblance of facts to support the charges. Presumably that has happened. If so have those facts ever been made public?
Click to expand...
That's a good point. You would assume the PL must have some evidence. But in the UEFA case we were sanctioned and later the CAS documents showed that UEFA had virtually no evidence at all. It seemed that UEFA's only strategy was to leak false statements to the media claiming they had a very strong case!
 
Lord Blue said:
thanks. am i right, afayk, in thinking that the charges would have needed to be supported by "facts" ? "facts" that we will be fully aware of.
Click to expand...
As I understand it, the very first thing the panel does after constitution is send an official complaint to the club with a list of the rules breached and, for each, a summary of the alleged "facts" and any supporting documentation. The club then has 14 days to either accept or deny the complaint. After a denial, the hearing process begins.

Where we currently are in the process is anyone's guess.
 
Cobwebcat said:
www.bbc.co.uk

Rui Pinto: Football Leaks founder handed four-year suspended sentence by Portugal court

Rui Pinto, the man behind the Football Leaks website which exposed deals involving top football clubs, agents and players, avoids prison.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...
From It:
Cas said City were cleared of "disguising equity funds as sponsorship contributions", but that the club did "fail to co-operate with Uefa authorities". It also reduced an initial fine imposed on City from 30m euros to 10m euros.

Have you noticed the media never mentions why we did not co=operate due to the constant leaks from UEFA
 
hertsblue said:
From It:
Cas said City were cleared of "disguising equity funds as sponsorship contributions", but that the club did "fail to co-operate with Uefa authorities". It also reduced an initial fine imposed on City from 30m euros to 10m euros.

Have you noticed the media never mentions why we did not co=operate due to the constant leaks from UEFA
Click to expand...
I’m not sure that was the reason. My guess is that some of the material they wanted might have referenced our confidential business plan…very useful to our detractors.
 
Would any of our legal experts know now that Pinto has been found quilty does that alter anything regarding our case ,ie confirming the emails were stolen etc ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top