PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Pablo ZZZ Peroni]

In terms of contracts, don't they have to be in accordance with UK Law?

EG: "In our street racing contract, you're limited to speeds of 100mph, but we clocked you at 110mph on Hyde Road, so you're in breach."

If the police picked up on this, could the street racer in breach not say it's none of their business, it's a private contractual dispute?

I looked at the CPS definition for Malicious reporting, which made me look again at several of the carefully crafted statements by the PL, which verge on accusations of "fraud" (I'm not saying you're guilty of arson, but I saw you set fire to your own house).

Where's the line drawn between essentially an inference of fraud in a contract between parties, & the CPS definition Malicious reporting, in the public interest (the courts deemed the issue could be reported on), leading to wasting police time & reputational damage?

The scenarios I put forward are done so for clarification by BM legal/finance experts (of which I'm not one). I'm merely a fan who's sick & tired of the bullshit & just wants to get back to the football.

In truth I have an element of legal & finance training as part of my job which gives me a VERY light laymans working knowledge.

When situations like this arise, like many City fans struggling to get their heads around this, I take my head out of the weeds, stand back & take a global over all view of what's happening.

Cutting to the chase, FFP/PSR is a bullshit witch hunt specifically crafted to stop Manchester City Football Club, & to protect the G14 & Spuds from ever being challenged. That's the short & tall of it.

Sometimes we've gotta stop getting dragged into football's silly legal/contractual/accounting games & call out FFP/PSR for the protectionist con it is.

Most opposition fans couldn't care less about the detailed minutiae contained in this thread, because in their minds we've been correctly accused of cheating, dominated football unfairly & only won what we have because we're crooks, & there's little any of us can say which'll change their minds.

Ultimately my suggestion of calling in the authorities to look at our business because of all the spurious public allegations made, which are causing huge reputational damage & hurt to our fans, can be characterised by the bolded type in your quote above.

That's all it takes to switch the spotlight of guilt by Manchester City, to the feeling of a witch hunt by the PL.

If the UK courts deemed the PL tribunal could be reported on because its in the public interest, surely City calling in the Feds to see if we have a criminal case to answer, would settle this farce legally, which would be in the public interest & considered a fair conclusion?

Yes, it is a protectionist con and all the arguments were chronicled in great detail on here before UEFA FFP was introduced in 11/12. Back then there was even some media acknowledgement that it would suit the "big boys" best.

But the club chose to work within the rules and not to challenge the legalities of FFP as a construct. Hence, we took the pinch in the 2014 settlement rather than shouting from the rooftops about the protectionist con.

 

[Blue_eyes]

HMRC wouldn't comment in public on any investigation they had carried out (unless it lead to a prosecution)

Interesting, could this be our irrefutable evidence perhaps, a clean bill of health from HMRC.

Their investigation not being in the public domain because there is nothing about us to prosecute.

Would this clear us of any fraud related accusations, or would the pl refer to their own "rules" still, and if so,would that situation be legal.

 

[Chris in London]

In terms of contracts, don't they have to be in accordance with UK Law?

EG: "In our street racing contract, you're limited to speeds of 100mph, but we clocked you at 110mph on Hyde Road, so you're in breach."

If the police picked up on this, could the street racer in breach not say it's none of their business, it's a private contractual dispute?

I looked at the CPS definition for Malicious reporting, which made me look again at several of the carefully crafted statements by the PL, which verge on accusations of "fraud" (I'm not saying you're guilty of arson, but I saw you set fire to your own house).

Where's the line drawn between essentially an inference of fraud in a contract between parties, & the CPS definition Malicious reporting, in the public interest (the courts deemed the issue could be reported on), leading to wasting police time & reputational damage?

The scenarios I put forward are done so for clarification by BM legal/finance experts (of which I'm not one). I'm merely a fan who's sick & tired of the bullshit & just wants to get back to the football.

In truth I have an element of legal & finance training as part of my job which gives me a VERY light laymans working knowledge.

When situations like this arise, like many City fans struggling to get their heads around this, I take my head out of the weeds, stand back & take a global over all view of what's happening.

Cutting to the chase, FFP/PSR is a bullshit witch hunt specifically crafted to stop Manchester City Football Club, & to protect the G14 & Spuds from ever being challenged. That's the short & tall of it.

Sometimes we've gotta stop getting dragged into football's silly legal/contractual/accounting games & call out FFP/PSR for the protectionist con it is.

Most opposition fans couldn't care less about the detailed minutiae contained in this thread, because in their minds we've been correctly accused of cheating, dominated football unfairly & only won what we have because we're crooks, & there's little any of us can say which'll change their minds.

Ultimately my suggestion of calling in the authorities to look at our business because of all the spurious public allegations made, which are causing huge reputational damage & hurt to our fans, can be characterised by the bolded type in your quote above.

That's all it takes to switch the spotlight of guilt by Manchester City, to the feeling of a witch hunt by the PL.

If the UK courts deemed the PL tribunal could be reported on because its in the public interest, surely City calling in the Feds to see if we have a criminal case to answer, would settle this farce legally, which would be in the public interest & considered a fair conclusion?

I suppose it's a matter of judgment, and mine is that the cub would not be interested in giving Plod free access to our books in the hope of getting an all-clear, nor (at least at this stage) would Plod be interested in doing so. If the charges are proved my guess is the SFO would facing mounting public pressure to launch an inquiry of their own, and would do, but I still doubt that even in the event of the PL charges being successful there would actually be any criminal charges brought.

Others may see it differently, but I don't.

 

[Berts Neck]

Chris,

A wonderful succint post.Just a few questions.

1. Is this a summary on publically available information or from another source ? If from another source I appreciate the fact you will not disclose that !! A few other well respected posters like PB have made similar comments, so it perhaps would be important in such a clarification to explain how (if you can) you came to this conclusion.
2.The potential allegation of fraud.Not a lawyer, but a friend of mine was accused of fraud.Later exonerated.This involved an unexpected attendance by the police who confiscated his PCs laptops and all mobile phones in the house.I would imagine if the SFO had any inkling of fraud they would surely by now have acted in a similar fashion ?
3. The Roberto payments.Would Roberto have to be involved in any discussion in this matter, and if he or others decline,especially as they live abroad, does that not make the matter that much more complicated in terms of proof ? Just wondering if the PL have approached RM and he has said nothing to do with me.I would imagine his input would be critical in any charges against City.

Once again thank you.I am absolutely not questioning your veracity, but point one in particular would be useful to have an answer to !!

Bert

Moved from the 115 thread!!!!!

 

[Pablo ZZZ Peroni]

Thanks, but it was more the "our owners" comment. Thought I had missed something ....

It was the baby of @Prestwich_Blue when he linked to documents filed in a New York court about the Open Skies legal case between the Big 3 American airlines v the Arab airlines from UAE and Qatar. Colin's point was that the documents were in the public domain and proved ADEC funded Etihad to the tune of £100mil. The link to this has been taken down but I have a 400 page PDF if you want it.

But the court also has another document. I went down the rabbit hole about a year ago and dug up loads of documents relating to the New York case including an Etihad legal submission to the court in 2015 denying categorically that the Abu Dhabi government funded the City sponsorship.

My view is this all a red herring and for a number of reasons is irrelevant now as far is this case is concerned.

 

[Dribble]

Yes, it is a protectionist con and all the arguments were chronicled in great detail on here before UEFA FFP was introduced in 11/12. Back then there was even some media acknowledgement that it would suit the "big boys" best.

But the club chose to work within the rules and not to challenge the legalities of FFP as a construct. Hence, we took the pinch in the 2014 settlement rather than shouting from the rooftops about the protectionist con.

But in 2014 Khaldoon continued that if they came at us again, rather than pay a £30m fine, we'd spend £30m assembling the finest legal team in the world.

The Red Top Mafia & Spuds just keep coming at us. If this thread has shown me anything, it's in the big scheme of things, normal business practices are being hyped up to Enron levels of corporate fraud & criminality.

UEFA & the PL just won't leave us alone to play football. Even Aguero was accosted during an interview last week, where he emphatically told the journalist every trophy he gained at City was won fair & Square on the pitch.

At what point is enough, enough?

 

[halfcenturyup]

It was the baby of @Prestwich_Blue when he linked to documents filed in a New York court about the Open Skies legal case between the Big 3 American Airlines v the bad Arab airlines from UAE and Qatar. Colin's point was that the documents were in the public domain and proved ADEC funded Etihad to the tune of £100mil.

I went down the rabbit hole about a year ago and dug up loads of documents relating to the New York case including an Etihad legal submission to the court in 2015 denying categorically that the Abu Dhabi government funded the City sponsorship.

Presumably the government was completely funding Etihad at that point? Maybe they meant the sponsorship specifically, but, like I say, I didnt follow that at all. I would be interested if you could add more, or give me some links to the court documentation?

 

[meltonblue]

I suppose it's a matter of judgment, and mine is that the cub would not be interested in giving Plod free access to our books in the hope of getting an all-clear, nor (at least at this stage) would Plod be interested in doing so. If the charges are proved my guess is the SFO would facing mounting public pressure to launch an inquiry of their own, and would do, but I still doubt that even in the event of the PL charges being successful there would actually be any criminal charges brought.

Others may see it differently, but I don't.

Depending what they find us guilty of, I don’t think it would show that much anyway, it’d need access to the books of the sponsors and ADUG more than us. I’ve always thought any potential criminal act (for fraud at least) would potentially be with them.

 

[Dribble]

I suppose it's a matter of judgment, and mine is that the cub would not be interested in giving Plod free access to our books in the hope of getting an all-clear, nor (at least at this stage) would Plod be interested in doing so. If the charges are proved my guess is the SFO would facing mounting public pressure to launch an inquiry of their own, and would do, but I still doubt that even in the event of the PL charges being successful there would actually be any criminal charges brought.

Others may see it differently, but I don't.

It wouldn't be free access though. It'd be the same as any other criminal investigation, where we'd supply the relevant evidence against us & our defence, as we would in any other case.

I'm not expecting City to do any of this btw, but if I were constantly being besmirched in public this way, I'd definitely consider calling in the authorities, listing the accusations, providing my evidence & asking them if I have a criminal case to answer. If no, I'd tell my accusers to put up, or STFU.

Actions like this have been taken by individuals previously. I recall the husband of a family who'd recently moved to a new town, having dog shit posted through their letterbox & threats made, because rumours started he was a notorious, recently released paedophile who'd been rehoused. He went to the police who publicly confirmed he'd never been spoken to in connection with such heinous crimes, let alone recently released from jail for it.

At what point do we say enough is enough & go nuclear to bring this witch hunt to an end?

My family in London are all Spuds fans. When Joe Lewis pleaded guilty to insider trading which carries a maximum sentence of 45 years, I sent the article to them saying "I always wondered how you guaranteed your £1bn stadium & paid for Maddison".

After their recent accusations of City being FFP/PSR cheats & criminals, now it's radio silence. Are the PL or UEFA investigating where Spud's money came from?

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Wasn’t he posthumously pardoned?

No, he was released some ten years later.

The one who didn’t fire the shot, who was executed had his conviction overturned in the ‘90s. Not a pardon, that’s different and doesn’t extinguish the finding of guilt.