PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Prestwich_Blue]

Every email has a similar statement contained within it.
This is from Barclays Bank today.

Is it just me that doesn't get this?

What don't you get?

 

[dickie davies]

And this story is three years old and since then Pinto has been found guilty of extortion, got a four years suspended jail sentence in Spain, a sixth-month suspended sentence in France, and has been charged with 377 more offences. I am not sure he would be a credible witness!

377!
He makes us look like amateurs with our poxy 115

 

[cheekybids]

The laws protecting journalists in Germany are much more robust than our own, I think they'd be terrified of going after them.

More than 1 way to skin a lying **** of an organisation.

 

[hello]

And this story is three years old and since then Pinto has been found guilty of extortion, got a four years suspended jail sentence in Spain, a sixth-month suspended sentence in France, and has been charged with 377 more offences. I am not sure he would be a credible witness!

stick him in a full dipper kit and a rag hoodie & arsenal will approve him being credible for PL purposes.

 

[Paladin]

This is why after being calm, then shitting myself, I'm back to being calm about the whole mess which is where I reckon I'll remain.

After watching your YouTube analysis, I couldn’t find anything earth-shattering or new to add to what UEFA didn't cover in 2014 or 2018, apart from the sentence taken out of context from a cache of stolen emails, which according to UK Law must be time barred?

The only confusing thing is whether the time bar starts from the date of the alleged offence, or from the date the offence was uncovered? UK Law isn't clear on this as there are caveats dependent of the severity of the charges.

Then there's the definition of "offence". What we're being charged with maybe an "offence" against the "rules" of the PL's private members club, BUT the charge itself isn't an "offence" in UK Law.

Seeing as the PL itself says its rules don't supercede UK Law, I'm even more lost as to where they're going with this & the UK statute of limitations issues? \0/

They are trying to prove concealment or fraud, in which events the Limitation Act would not apply.

 

[BackofJeanette]

What don't you get?

That an email is confidential so how can someone steal it and use it against you.
Why does every email have this confidentiality contained so therefore making it inadmissible?

 

[Dribble]

They are trying to prove concealment or fraud, in which events the Limitation Act would not apply.

It's not quite so straightforward. Looking at UK Law, extending the statute of limitations is based on the severity of the case, & judges have discretion over the merits.

We've submitted our annual returns which are a matter of public record, & we've had verified audits too.

The only thing the PL seem to have is the sentence in the stolen emails which mentions "His Highness" sourcing elements of our sponsorship agreements from third parties, so the funds show immediately for FFP purposes.

This all seems an unimaginable stretch by the PL. The only way to prove their accusations that ADUG paid Mohammed, who in turn paid City, is to get ADUG & Jaber Mohammed to open their books & provide bank statements.

Considering neither come under UEFA or the PL's jurisdiction, most organisations or individuals would tell em to go fuck themselves. ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠⊙⁠_⁠ʖ⁠⊙⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

 

[Brendan110_0]

They are trying to prove concealment or fraud, in which events the Limitation Act would not apply.

And they have ZERO witnesses to these alleged frauds. Not ex managers, support staff, tea lady, the likes of Garry Cook, Yaya Toure and Dimitri Seluk (who went on record saying there were no dodgy payments).

They have nothing, but will still find us guilty and kick us out of the league - who's going to stop them? No one.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

That an email is confidential so how can someone steal it and use it against you.
Why does every email have this confidentiality contained so therefore making it inadmissible?

The media would cite public interest as a reason and CAS, governed by Swiss Law, agreed.

 

[Maly]

The media would cite public interest as a reason and CAS, governed by Swiss Law, agreed.

Any idea how stolen emails would be viewed under UK law? Admissible or not?

 

[Father Paul]

And they have ZERO witnesses to these alleged frauds. Not ex managers, support staff, tea lady, the likes of Garry Cook, Yaya Toure and Dimitri Seluk (who went on record saying there were no dodgy payments).

They have nothing, but will still find us guilty and kick us out of the league - who's going to stop them? No one.

They can't do that even though they may wish they could also if they issue any punishment which is too severe it is my understanding that this can be appealed to the High Court.

 

[Chi-town blues]

And this story is three years old and since then Pinto has been found guilty of extortion, got a four years suspended jail sentence in Spain, a sixth-month suspended sentence in France, and has been charged with 377 more offences. I am not sure he would be a credible witness!

A thief is only a credible witness for his own crime.

 

[eyalluvitt]

and Liverpool (cleared by UEFA for some strange reason but we all know they did fail)

Failed by 60m but wrote it off as stadium expansion evaluation costs, which was of course accepted by a fair and impartial PL

 

[eyalluvitt]

Not the PL. Their dispute was with the EFL and they eventually settled with them a couple of years after winning the PL title. Fact is though, the whole episode of them breaching Championship FFP never got any widespread coverage in the media. I think The Guardian were the only ones to ever report on it. After all, the wider media were never going to write any negative articles about their fairytale title winners.

Fast forward to today and rumours abound that Leicester are going to sue Everton. If there’s any truth in that then it’s a fucking piss-take. Perhaps the clubs Leicester got promoted at the expense of can sue Leicester as well.

I once had an annoying Korean neighbour called Suemi, so I did

 

[Paladin]

I once had an annoying Korean neighbour called Suemi, so I did

I had one called Sam Sung.

 

[jim tolmies perm]

I had one called Sam Sung.

Did you sue him for his ingratiating voice?

 

[Centurions]

That an email is confidential so how can someone steal it and use it against you.
Why does every email have this confidentiality contained so therefore making it inadmissible?

Just adding that at the bottom of anything doesn't make it legally binding, that would be up to a court to decide.

 

[Centurions]

They are trying to prove concealment or fraud, in which events the Limitation Act would not apply.

I'm still puzzled that if that is the case then why haven't they passed it on to the SFO as it's way beyond the PLs remit.

 

[WRicko]

I'm still puzzled that if that is the case then why haven't they passed it on to the SFO as it's way beyond the PLs remit.

Plus surely that have legal requirement to report

 

[halfcenturyup]

Plus surely that have legal requirement to report

Apparently, there is no legal obligation to report fraud to the police or to any other body, unless part of a regulated sector that has a duty to do so. Football isn't a regulated sector.

If they are really pursuing fraud, I would have thought it would make sense to report it in this case, though, to avoid any future "embarrassment". Personally, I don't think they have a snowflake's chance in hell of proving fraud for a multitude of reasons.