PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

The Telegraph have an 'exclusive' that Forest have hired Nick De Marco to fight any attempt by the PL to charge them with breaking P&S limits. They are sailing close to the wind but seemingly they are confident that they will pass.

Similar situation to Chelsea as it's going to be close for them too.
 
Invisible Man's Bandage said:
The Telegraph have an 'exclusive' that Forest have hired Nick De Marco to fight any attempt by the PL to charge them with breaking P&S limits. They are sailing close to the wind but seemingly they are confident that they will pass.

Similar situation to Chelsea as it's going to be close for them too.
Click to expand...
Maybe they've picked City in the PL power struggle, Everton did and got fucked for 10 points (way OTT).
 
train man said:
From the 'toontastic' transfer forum...

"Hopefully Man City's FFP is settled out of court sooner rather than later and allows us to blow a massive hole in the FFP rules"

They also seem reasonably keen on trying to sign Kalvin...
Click to expand...
They can still sign Phillips on loan
 
mackenzie said:
Is that true? Would love to know that it is ;-)
Click to expand...
I can't guarantee it was 1962 but four clubs were done for it: Peterborough and (I think) Northampton Town were demoted from the old Second Division to the fourth, which was a draconian punishment, and the FA (or FL) announced that any clubs found to be in breach of the same regulation would be treated in the same way. Then it came to light that United and Derby County may have actually breached the same regulations in the same way. The investigation showed this to be the case but the punishments were, for some reason, not on the same scale. I add that Matt Busby had apparently agreed a deal with at least one player which involved illegal payments right at the start of his managerial career in 1945. This was never actually proven but a Blackburn Rovers official went to meet the player at the railway station, having already agreed a deal with him, but was ignored by the player, who walked off with Busby and later signed for the rags.
 
So, limitation :)

This is the situation I think:

Breach of contract has a six year limitation period. The club was charged in 2023, so anything before 2017 would normally be time-barred.

However, if essential facts were deliberately concealed from the PL, then the 6 year period starts from the date of discovery, which was 2018. We were charged in 2023, so if the panel considers there was deliberate concealment, everything is "on the table".

My question then is how to determine deliberate concealment?

Presumably they would have to come to the conclusion first that there was an actual breach for all breaches prior to 2017 (you can't deliberately hide something if you didn't do it)? So they will have to come to a conclusion on all the pre-2017 charges first before they can determine which, if any, are time-barred? As opposed to CAS, where they could consider time-barring first without considering the merits.

No wonder it will take four years ....

Does that make any sense?
 
halfcenturyup said:
My question then is how to determine deliberate concealment?

Presumably they would have to come to the conclusion first that there was an actual breach for all breaches prior to 2017 (you can't deliberately hide something if you didn't do it)? So they will have to come to a conclusion on all the pre-2017 charges first before they can determine which, if any, are time-barred? As opposed to CAS, where they could consider time-barring first without considering the merits.

No wonder it will take four years ....

Does that make any sense?
Click to expand...
it is unlikely that there will be a prescribed order that the tribunal would have to determine matters in. They could determine the limitation point at the outset or as part of the overall decision. I expect that will be up to the panel. If it was the former, the tribunal would also need to be satisfied that there was a case to answer which itself could be determined at an early stage following an application from the club (or if its own volition) assuming that hasn’t already been determined.

As to the determination of deliberate concealment, if the tribunal found the accounts were false then it must follow from that (given the size of the organisation and involvement of auditors) that concealment/fraud was intrinsic to that process. It’s difficult to see how it could not be. If it doesn’t find that then (on the face of it) the allegation(s) fall away in any event and the limitation point is rendered moot.

Under the circumstances of the former what would still need to be determined was when discovery occurred, and as I said previously it’s hard to see how it could be any later than the Der Spiegel articles. It would be preposterous for the PL to argue otherwise in the circumstances. That assumes that these allegations are associated with those articles, as we are currently assuming they are, but can’t be sure about given the foregoing public absence of meaningful particulars.

A lot of this is guesswork and supposition, which shows the process up to be utterly flawed, especially given the profile of the claim and the public interest in it. They’ve accused the club of fraud without providing any meaningful context to that, which has fuelled the feeding frenzy in the media and allowed speculation and innuendo to flourish - which was probably the intent.
 
Last edited:
halfcenturyup said:
So, limitation :)

This is the situation I think:

Breach of contract has a six year limitation period. The club was charged in 2023, so anything before 2017 would normally be time-barred.

However, if essential facts were deliberately concealed from the PL, then the 6 year period starts from the date of discovery, which was 2018. We were charged in 2023, so if the panel considers there was deliberate concealment, everything is "on the table".

My question then is how to determine deliberate concealment?

Presumably they would have to come to the conclusion first that there was an actual breach for all breaches prior to 2017 (you can't deliberately hide something if you didn't do it)? So they will have to come to a conclusion on all the pre-2017 charges first before they can determine which, if any, are time-barred? As opposed to CAS, where they could consider time-barring first without considering the merits.

No wonder it will take four years ....

Does that make any sense?
Click to expand...

Where are you getting this from, out of interest?
 
Gorton_Tubster said:
Recently united were fined due to ffp. Can anyone here tell me how that compares to Evertons fine and crime? Are they vastly different and fair?
Click to expand...
From what I recall the Rags committed a minor technical breach, or something like that. I don't recall any specifics on what the breach was or the amounts involved. So nothing to see, everything is fine. We can trust that the authorities dealt with it fairly can't we?
 
halfcenturyup said:
So, limitation :)

This is the situation I think:

Breach of contract has a six year limitation period. The club was charged in 2023, so anything before 2017 would normally be time-barred.

However, if essential facts were deliberately concealed from the PL, then the 6 year period starts from the date of discovery, which was 2018. We were charged in 2023, so if the panel considers there was deliberate concealment, everything is "on the table".

My question then is how to determine deliberate concealment?

Presumably they would have to come to the conclusion first that there was an actual breach for all breaches prior to 2017 (you can't deliberately hide something if you didn't do it)? So they will have to come to a conclusion on all the pre-2017 charges first before they can determine which, if any, are time-barred? As opposed to CAS, where they could consider time-barring first without considering the merits.

No wonder it will take four years ....

Does that make any sense?
Click to expand...
My question was, what cogency of evidence is required to establish any such alleged fraud or concealment and what burden of proof must that evidence satisfy?

Of course the case is civil requiring evidence to satisfy the "on the balance of probability" burden however any alleged "concealment" is essentially "fraud", a criminal offence term, which, under normal circumstances, as made out in the Fraud Act 2006, requires a high level of evidence to establish the mens rea element of "knowingly" to "beyond reasonable doubt" level when making false statements (representations).

Fraud Act 2006 S.2

S.2 Fraud by false representation​

2)2(b) the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.

The difficulty lies in that "concealment" suggests fraud by omission or failure to disclose however there must be a "legal" duty to disclose the information which I'm not sure there is for the adherence to PL rules.

Fraud Act 2006 S.3​

S.3 Fraud by failing to disclose information​

3(a) dishonestly fails to disclose to another person information which he is under a legal duty to disclose, and....

#projectriver
I think im correct in these assumptions re proof of fraud however im sure our legal professionals would put me firmly in place if not.

Just to give a sense to the complexity and sometimes strange world of legal application. I was once part of a team trying a case at Crown Court Minshull Street. The case was quite complicated and involved serious mis-statements and omissions with regard to the sale of goods and services. There were clearly elements of fraud at play however discussions in Chambers with counsel for endless hours regarding available evidence through statements and documents etc and counsel was adamant we had insufficient evidence to prove the "knowing" element for any allegation of fraud. This meant the final indictment contained several charges in relation to consumer legislation only. (Max 2 years prison for each).

First day in court the Judge informed all parties he had reviewed the case and it was clearly a case of fraud as he interpreted it and he was changing the indictment to reflect this to contain offences under the Fraud Act 2006.

We all thought well that's kiboshed our case as we can't prove those charges to the required standard. However to cut a long story short the jury found the person guilty.

It was clear our counsel thought that judgement was somewhat lucky in that opposition counsel failed to recognise the weakness in our evidence against those changed charges on the indictment. Never to be stated verbally in the presence of mere mortals of course, just heavily inferred informally over coffee.
 
StillBluessinceHydeRoad said:
I can't guarantee it was 1962 but four clubs were done for it: Peterborough and (I think) Northampton Town were demoted from the old Second Division to the fourth, which was a draconian punishment, and the FA (or FL) announced that any clubs found to be in breach of the same regulation would be treated in the same way. Then it came to light that United and Derby County may have actually breached the same regulations in the same way. The investigation showed this to be the case but the punishments were, for some reason, not on the same scale. I add that Matt Busby had apparently agreed a deal with at least one player which involved illegal payments right at the start of his managerial career in 1945. This was never actually proven but a Blackburn Rovers official went to meet the player at the railway station, having already agreed a deal with him, but was ignored by the player, who walked off with Busby and later signed for the rags.
Click to expand...
A shame there were no CCTV cameras at railway stations back then!
 
Cheer Up Peter Reid said:
From what I recall the Rags committed a minor technical breach, or something like that. I don't recall any specifics on what the breach was or the amounts involved. So nothing to see, everything is fine. We can trust that the authorities dealt with it fairly can't we?
Click to expand...

I don't think there is much detail - it's been described by the club as partly an effect of a change in how UEFA assessed losses during the pandemic.
I think the change is why it's been described as technical.
 
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