PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Dribble said:
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?
Click to expand...

Simon Cliff said in an email sent at at the end of April 2014: "Khaldoon said he would rather spend 30 million on the 50 best lawyers in the world to sue them for the next 10 years." The football association, according to the email, now had the possibility "to avoid the destruction of their rules and organization."

There was no "if they came at us again" with Khaldoon at the time that I can see. Khaldoon was talking figuratively. We settled with UEFA in May 2014 so he didn't the need the 50 best lawyers etc,

So, we took the pinch. We were happy with the settlement. It was paradoxically a good deal for us (according to prestwichblue and I agree with him).

But I understand your sentiment.
 
halfcenturyup said:
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?
Click to expand...

The answer to your question is Yes or No. It depends!

Here is one link. See the bottom of page 19 for specific reference to City.


The web link has disappeared for the other legal doc (the one Colin used) but I can send you the big PDF by email if you message me.
 
Dribble said:
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?
Click to expand...

I took the 'pinch' comment to not be directed at the FFP system itself - as has been said, the club had agreed to fall in line with it.

I thought that declaration was a warning that the club were swallowing this one, with an unspoken reference to the moving of the goalposts so City missed by a lot rather than a little. In return for not trying to knock the sandcastle over, the punishment was reduced to the fine/suspended fine/squad limit.

Edit: 'reduced' from the potential higher penalty possible.
 
urban genie said:
I Doubt it, we have been accused in an internal business matter between the Prem and one of its members, only if they can prrove guilt of fraud and wrong doing would/could it be passed on to authorities.

At present the HMRC, SFO and police are not accusing us of anything or feel need to investigate us for any wrong doing, that is up to the prem to prove, then they may get involved.
Click to expand...
If they can't prove guilt or fraud, then how does this play out with regards to the statute of limitation?
I read on this thread that the six year limit would not hold if there's fraud or deception.
Unless my understanding of this is wrong.

Edit: I have just read the post from Chris which answers my question.
 
Last edited:
gordondaviesmoustache said:
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.
Click to expand...
That book was part of my GCSE English literature exam.

Carry on as you were, just thought I’d offer some useless information. :-)
 
Berts Neck said:
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!!!!!
Click to expand...
:)

1. Some is publicly available, some is my own analysis. Eg the breakdown of the charges is how I group the charges in my own mind. There are other ways of grouping the charges - issue by issue, year by year, but the three themes I have chosen seem to me the most logical breakdown. Others may have very valid reasons for disagreeing.

Very little however of what I say has not been said already in this thread, often by multiple posters all saying the same thing.

2. I think we can assume (a) that the SFO have heard of the fact that the PL has charged us, and (b) if the SFO had swooped in to confiscate City's laptops we'd have heard about it. I suppose you can draw your own conclusions from that.

3. What the PL is alleging, in essence, is that the contract between Al Jazira and RM was a sham, invented to cover additional remuneration actually paid to RM by MCFC. I don't see why City would have paid him in that way. There is a lot of logic in saying to a friendly club in AD 'would you mind paying him a lot of money for a few days work' so he doesn't take a job somewhere else as we moved towards the end of the Hughes era. But that doesn't make that contract a sham. Things can be artificial without being a sham. I don't see any reason why we would have disguised RM's income beyond that.

More importantly, I don't see how you can say 'that contract between RM and AJ was a sham' without hearing from RM and AJ and scrutinising the accounts of both. I agree RM's input would be extremely important in that respect. And like you, I have never heard RM say 'Oh no, I never went to Al Jazirah, that was just a smokescreen to hide how much money I was being paid by City.' And if he'd ever said that, I think it would have leaked.
 
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.