PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

WRicko said:
I am sure I could come up with some analogy about stealing from a private club could be called something else etc by the club and then it wouldn’t be stealing but of course it would still be stealing and a crime etc. but let’s not go there what’s your actual point in relation to our case. That unless they use the word fraud time bar applies or the charges disappear what ?
Click to expand...
I'm not hung up on fraud, breaches or whatever the PL & onlookers choose to call it. I wanted answers & solutions to the 115 breaches we've allegedly committed. I've tried to keep very focused on this.

1. The issue is UEFA/PL Rules & UK Law. Our breaches are being heard under UEFA/PL Rules, which suggests we've done nothing wrong in accordance with UK Law. That's my understanding of our legal standing for those fretting about the legal ramifications.

2. As for the breaches, the PL & UEFA can accuse us of eating babies, the fact is they have to prove it, & the only proof I've heard of is a sentence in a stolen email that City says is presented in isolation, so therefore taken out of context. The rest seems to be supposition based on the balance of probabilities.

This is it. I've absolutely no idea why some have become fixated on the word 'fraud', which neither City, UEFA or the PL has mentioned.

What we've been accused of may amount to FFP breaches, but fraud is a statutory & legal matter so doesn't seemingly matter with our case, albeit that's what the accusations amount to. But if this is the case, why don't the PL come out & plainly say so?

This is why I've not hung myself up on the term 'fraud'. I just wanted to understand the charges, understand the legal ramifications, understand the PL's adjudication process, & know what City's response is & our options, both within the PL's sphere of influence, & legally.

If you want to discuss fraud, you'll need to ask those who keep going on about it. Hopefully this clarifies matters.
 
Dribble said:
I'm not hung up on fraud, breaches or whatever the PL & onlookers choose to call it. I wanted answers & solutions to the 115 breaches we've allegedly committed. I've tried to keep very focused on this.

1. The issue is UEFA/PL Rules & UK Law. Our breaches are being heard under UEFA/PL Rules, which suggests we've done nothing wrong in accordance with UK Law. That's my understanding of our legal standing for those fretting about the legal ramifications.

2. As for the breaches, the PL & UEFA can accuse us of eating babies, the fact is they have to prove it, & the only proof I've heard of is a sentence in a stolen email that City says is presented in isolation, so therefore taken out of context. The rest seems to be supposition based on the balance of probabilities.

This is it. I've absolutely no idea why some have become fixated on the word 'fraud', which neither City, UEFA or the PL has mentioned.

What we've been accused of may amount to FFP breaches, but fraud is a statutory & legal matter so doesn't seemingly matter with our case, albeit that's what the accusations amount to. But if this is the case, why don't the PL come out & plainly say so?

This is why I've not hung myself up on the term 'fraud'. I just wanted to understand the charges, understand the legal ramifications, understand the PL's adjudication process, & know what City's response is & our options, both within the PL's sphere of influence, & legally.

If you want to discuss fraud, you'll need to ask those who keep going on about it. Hopefully this clarifies matters.
Click to expand...
This is largely incorrect. City themselves described the UEFA charges (to which the PL charges relate but this time under English law) as a serious allegation of fraud and conspiracy. Fraud can be civil or criminal or both. Happy New Year!
 

Attachments

  • IMG_9043.jpeg
    IMG_9043.jpeg
    215.1 KB · Views: 162
projectriver said:
This is largely incorrect. City themselves described the UEFA charges (to which the PL charges relate but this time under English law) as a serious allegation of fraud and conspiracy. Fraud can be civil or criminal or both. Happy New Year!
Click to expand...

You've given a much shorter and pithier explanation than I could. I was three paragraphs in, having started a long and tedious rebuttal but I deleted it when I saw yours.

However, I did use the phrase "another ill-considered screed of sesquipedalian bullshit". I'd to ensure that this formulation isn't lost.
 
Last edited:
halfcenturyup said:
For a start, this bit:


So in the space of two paragraphs in the same post, you managed to completely misrepresent how the 1980 Limitation Act and the 1968 Theft Act are applicable to the PL's case against City. Way to go.

There are more, including many irrelevant analogies that completely miss the point, and quite frankly, I haven't got the strength. Also, I have already abandoned my New Year's resolution not to engage with you on any legal issues. On the first day, already.

Happy New Year by the way. All Blues should have a great year even if we disagree on almost everything. :)
Click to expand...

Can you two not put this behind you for everyone else’s sake?
 
projectriver said:
This is largely incorrect. City themselves described the UEFA charges (to which the PL charges relate but this time under English law) as a serious allegation of fraud and conspiracy. Fraud can be civil or criminal or both. Happy New Year!
Click to expand...
I'll ask you this question which I posed yesterday regarding the six year time bar
@petrusha posted that if the charges were filed under English law, there would be a six year limitation

The PL charges go back to 2008
They charged us a year ago, Jan 23
Der Speigel's revelations were in November 2018

The PL is charging us from 15 years earlier and City's legal team will argue the six year limitation is from Jan last year when the chargeswere brought, but the financial information was made public by DS in November 18

Would it be fairly safe to assume that the six year cut off will be applied and be November 2013 as this is six years from the DS articles?
 
So with the hearing starting in around nine months time, judgement released in around eighteen months time and any appeal by either party completed in around two and a half years time with little or nothing to go on until judgement is out there is lots of scope for this thread to veer even more off tangent.

Welcome to 2024 :(
 
dickie davies said:
I'll ask you this question which I posed yesterday regarding the six year time bar
@petrusha posted that if the charges were filed under English law, there would be a six year limitation

The PL charges go back to 2008
They charged us a year ago, Jan 23
Der Speigel's revelations were in November 2018

The PL is charging us from 15 years earlier and City's legal team will argue the six year limitation is from Jan last year when the chargeswere brought, but the financial information was made public by DS in November 18

Would it be fairly safe to assume that the six year cut off will be applied and be November 2013 as this is six years from the DS articles?
Click to expand...

I’m also interested to know if 6 years comes into play, what are the dates?
 
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
✖
  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.