PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[silva_is_gold]

Well they took one of ours on board.

Still wouldn't trust the cunts!

 

[halfcenturyup]

Civil fraud is really serious. As are the allegations in this matter/case/PL complaint or whatever you call it.

I get his point that words like "fraud" and "legal case" are worrying to many fans, but trying to pretend it isn't either of those things doesn't really help, other than at a very superficial level. It is both of those things and what is needed to get people's heads right is the sort of independent assessment of the case that you provide. So well done, you.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Do we as a club not have bigger things to worry about than a spending cap to close the make believe gap?

Existential threat for the survival of our great club and beating wolves -:)

City have tons of money to ride this out until the next set of rules and the next set after that are thrown out.

It’s more evidence towards the leagues motives, holding off a regulator.

This is all about money and power. Football is the sideshow. Lawyers and accountants take the stage…

Anyway, if we do get relegated at least we can climb the ladder again on equal footing hahahahaha.

Next rule please Sir.

I think the question is whether this is good for the PL or not.

If the 85% of revenue rule is also in place and the multiple is around 6 times, I don't see much downside. But let's see what actually gets voted into the new rule book in June.

 

[Dribble]

But you seem to have fundamentally misunderstood the situation - the alleged breaches are breaches of rules but they would also be breaches of various laws if proven - serious breaches. Put criminal law to one side (although they could also be breaches of the Fraud Act etc if ever charged and proven), there would be equivalent civil laws relating to almost every breach aside from the charges relating to cooperation with the PL.

In effect, City themselves said this at CAS and will have said it again to the PL.

But fortunately the charges are not of dirty tea mugs because the actual charges require far more cogent evidence and are, therefore, far harder to prove.

So I'm not sure it is worth others following your logic on this particular matter even if you are right in your support of the club.

PS City won't have issued any warnings about any of those words (to be honest, I doubt they have written to anyone in the media recently on this stuff). They are "charges", it is a "case", it is "legal" and if the IC finds against City whether people say "guilty" or that the charges are "proven" is semantics.

the alleged breaches are breaches of rules but they would also be breaches of various laws if proven - serious breaches.

So seeing as much of this info is already in the public domain, what are HMRC, the SFO & the police waiting for? Like the recent situation with Angela Rayner, why haven't we been reported by someone and/or had our collar felt yet because the authorities have become aware of City's potential criminality?

Are you seriously suggesting the UK Statutory Authorities are waiting for the Premier League's Independent Commission to do their job for them, before they strike & move in to raid the Etihad & slap the bracelets on our Executives?

there would be equivalent civil laws relating to almost every breach aside from the charges relating to cooperation with the PL.

Civil Law is concerned with the rights & property of individual people or organisations, & settles disputes between them, so this could extend to infinity over the most petty of disputes including who owns a pet, or if a neighbour's overhanging tree is encroaching on your property. Let's be honest about the very serious to ultra petty scope of UK Civil disputes here.

As far as I'm aware, only the CPS, police & certain statutory bodies can "charge" people in the UK, & this relates to criminal matters & covers several civil matters too.

When did the PL "charge" City? Have they ever used the "legal" term in respect to us? If not, why? All I've heard from the PL is "allegations" & "breaches".

They are "charges", it is a "case", it is "legal" and if the IC finds against City whether people say "guilty" or that the charges are "proven" is semantics.

They are "breaches" it's a "hearing" & there's nothing "legal" about it, unless/until a statutory body moves in to investigate with a view to issuing criminal or civil proceedings.

People can use whatever terms they like in reference to these breaches. My point is it's way beyond semantics as to why the PL have (in my opinion) carefully chosen not to. You believe there's nothing in this, but I believe this is absolutely crucial to properly understanding the alleged breaches & the resultant IC hearing.

I too got myself so deep in the forest that I couldn't see the wood for the trees. Yes, I fully support Manchester City, not just as a City fan, but because after getting out of the forest & taking a global overview, I saw these allegations very differently.

The very careful language used by the PL, the fact this has been played out so publicly but yet no statutory body has been complained to, or been on contact with City (to our knowledge) is critical to understanding my viewpoint.

To my knowledge the PL have never used the words "fraud" "charges" "case" "legal" or "guilty" against us & I suspect there's a VERY good reason why.

The PL aren't a statutory body, so are toothless in actual UK Law. They have no legal duty to find us "guilty" or "not guilty", & will just about be able to find us "liable" or "not liable", & even then only in the literal sense of the words, & not the legal sense.

Now I could be wrong here, so I'd appreciate it if you could provide counter empirical evidence to the contrary if you think I am. I don't mind my assertations being challenged & found to be in error, because at the very least it will help settle the minds of millions of worried City fans one way or the other.

Essentially, you feel City are on the verge of very serious legal jeopardy which will put our very PL existence in peril if we're found "guilty" of the "charges".

I feel these are jumped up allegations by a private members club who have about as much clout as the Wheel Tappers & Shunters Social Club's executive committee.

The PL's evidence is based on hacked & spliced emails from which they've formed suppositions & made subsequent allegations.

I think where we can both agree is that the level of cogency required to find us liable is seriously high, & for City's first batch of evidence, we've presented our audited, verified company accounts for starters.

Over to you, the Premier League & their Independent Commission.

 

[Dribble]

Very Strange for city and united to be on the same side of an issue.

I still have a sneaking suspicion there’s a bit of cosying up behind the scenes and the upper echelons of both clubs actually want to get on well and support each other earn more money that ever before, despite everything.

On the bright side if they are it means the charges will be completely thrown out, or we wouldn’t be making new friends

This is the crucial point. Who's mostly affected by a possible £530m squad spending limit? City.

Who'll be unintentionally dragged into being affected by a possible £530m squad spending limit? ManUre.

Who'll be comfortably inside a possible £530m squad spending limit? ArseAnal, Dippers, Spuds & Chavs.

To the rest of the League, a potential £530m squad spending limit means fuck all as they're well underneath this ceiling.

Yet again, it's further evidence of the PL being willing to eat itself in its relentless mission to stop Manchester City.

The interesting thing is how the voting over this proposed anchoring rule will affect the relationship between ManUre & their fellow cartel members?

Are ArseAnal, Dippers & Spuds willing to throw their senior member under a bus in order to stop City? This promises to get properly tasty. :-)

 

[halfcenturyup]

Bumped for the hard of understanding.

 

[slbsn]

So seeing as much of this info is already in the public domain, what are HMRC, the SFO & the police waiting for? Like the recent situation with Angela Rayner, why haven't we been reported by someone and/or had our collar felt yet because the authorities have become aware of City's potential criminality?

Are you seriously suggesting the UK Statutory Authorities are waiting for the Premier League's Independent Commission to do their job for them, before they strike & move in to raid the Etihad & slap the bracelets on our Executives?



Civil Law is concerned with the rights & property of individual people or organisations, & settles disputes between them, so this could extend to infinity over the most petty of disputes including who owns a pet, or if a neighbour's overhanging tree is encroaching on your property. Let's be honest about the very serious to ultra petty scope of UK Civil disputes here.

As far as I'm aware, only the CPS, police & certain statutory bodies can "charge" people in the UK, & this relates to criminal matters & covers several civil matters too.

When did the PL "charge" City? Have they ever used the "legal" term in respect to us? If not, why? All I've heard from the PL is "allegations" & "breaches".



They are "breaches" it's a "hearing" & there's nothing "legal" about it, unless/until a statutory body moves in to investigate with a view to issuing criminal or civil proceedings.

People can use whatever terms they like in reference to these breaches. My point is it's way beyond semantics as to why the PL have (in my opinion) carefully chosen not to. You believe there's nothing in this, but I believe this is absolutely crucial to properly understanding the alleged breaches & the resultant IC hearing.

I too got myself so deep in the forest that I couldn't see the wood for the trees. Yes, I fully support Manchester City, not just as a City fan, but because after getting out of the forest & taking a global overview, I saw these allegations very differently.

The very careful language used by the PL, the fact this has been played out so publicly but yet no statutory body has been complained to, or been on contact with City (to our knowledge) is critical to understanding my viewpoint.

To my knowledge the PL have never used the words "fraud" "charges" "case" "legal" or "guilty" against us & I suspect there's a VERY good reason why.

The PL aren't a statutory body, so are toothless in actual UK Law. They have no legal duty to find us "guilty" or "not guilty", & will just about be able to find us "liable" or "not liable", & even then only in the literal sense of the words, & not the legal sense.

Now I could be wrong here, so I'd appreciate it if you could provide counter empirical evidence to the contrary if you think I am. I don't mind my assertations being challenged & found to be in error, because at the very least it will help settle the minds of millions of worried City fans one way or the other.

Essentially, you feel City are on the verge of very serious legal jeopardy which will put our very PL existence in peril if we're found "guilty" of the "charges".

I feel these are jumped up allegations by a private members club who have about as much clout as the Wheel Tappers & Shunters Social Club's executive committee.

The PL's evidence is based on hacked & spliced emails from which they've formed suppositions & made subsequent allegations.

I think where we can both agree is that the level of cogency required to find us liable is seriously high, & for City's first batch of evidence, we've presented our audited, verified company accounts for starters.

Over to you, the Premier League & their Independent Commission.

Very little of this very long ramble is correct. You should assume that top lawyers on both sides will conduct a quasi tribal based on thousands of disclosed documents, witnesses of fact and third party experts. Yes, things started with a hack but we are far beyond that now.

Of course, your opinion is your prerogative but others readers shouldn’t take much comfort from this type of post. The PL and its processes are absolutely not toothless - as we have seen and as we continue to see. From a civil perspective, the rules offer the PL initially and then an IC dangerously broad powers in fact. Again as we have seen. Worth you reading the FAQ.

PS your premise is wrong anyway. The PL briefed “115 CHARGES” so they have happily stated that word. Not that anything turns on it.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

So seeing as much of this info is already in the public domain, what are HMRC, the SFO & the police waiting for? Like the recent situation with Angela Rayner, why haven't we been reported by someone and/or had our collar felt yet because the authorities have become aware of City's potential criminality?

Are you seriously suggesting the UK Statutory Authorities are waiting for the Premier League's Independent Commission to do their job for them, before they strike & move in to raid the Etihad & slap the bracelets on our Executives?



Civil Law is concerned with the rights & property of individual people or organisations, & settles disputes between them, so this could extend to infinity over the most petty of disputes including who owns a pet, or if a neighbour's overhanging tree is encroaching on your property. Let's be honest about the very serious to ultra petty scope of UK Civil disputes here.

As far as I'm aware, only the CPS, police & certain statutory bodies can "charge" people in the UK, & this relates to criminal matters & covers several civil matters too.

When did the PL "charge" City? Have they ever used the "legal" term in respect to us? If not, why? All I've heard from the PL is "allegations" & "breaches".



They are "breaches" it's a "hearing" & there's nothing "legal" about it, unless/until a statutory body moves in to investigate with a view to issuing criminal or civil proceedings.

People can use whatever terms they like in reference to these breaches. My point is it's way beyond semantics as to why the PL have (in my opinion) carefully chosen not to. You believe there's nothing in this, but I believe this is absolutely crucial to properly understanding the alleged breaches & the resultant IC hearing.

I too got myself so deep in the forest that I couldn't see the wood for the trees. Yes, I fully support Manchester City, not just as a City fan, but because after getting out of the forest & taking a global overview, I saw these allegations very differently.

The very careful language used by the PL, the fact this has been played out so publicly but yet no statutory body has been complained to, or been on contact with City (to our knowledge) is critical to understanding my viewpoint.

To my knowledge the PL have never used the words "fraud" "charges" "case" "legal" or "guilty" against us & I suspect there's a VERY good reason why.

The PL aren't a statutory body, so are toothless in actual UK Law. They have no legal duty to find us "guilty" or "not guilty", & will just about be able to find us "liable" or "not liable", & even then only in the literal sense of the words, & not the legal sense.

Now I could be wrong here, so I'd appreciate it if you could provide counter empirical evidence to the contrary if you think I am. I don't mind my assertations being challenged & found to be in error, because at the very least it will help settle the minds of millions of worried City fans one way or the other.

Essentially, you feel City are on the verge of very serious legal jeopardy which will put our very PL existence in peril if we're found "guilty" of the "charges".

I feel these are jumped up allegations by a private members club who have about as much clout as the Wheel Tappers & Shunters Social Club's executive committee.

The PL's evidence is based on hacked & spliced emails from which they've formed suppositions & made subsequent allegations.

I think where we can both agree is that the level of cogency required to find us liable is seriously high, & for City's first batch of evidence, we've presented our audited, verified company accounts for starters.

Over to you, the Premier League & their Independent Commission.

Seriously mate, choose another hill to die on.

 

[KS55]

Everton & neither City or United were sectarian.

I remember when we signed Quinn, he thought we were a Protestant club and had to be persuaded otherwise before signing.

 

[cheekybids]

Gerald Ratner likes this post.

The power of the media when Boeing lose 2x 737s mid air are still going although significant loss in value but a jewellers selling cheap crap fails ….

 

[KS55]

Khaldoon knows we've done nothing wrong.
Make no mistake though he's fuckin angry..pissed off.
He'll never show it fully because he's a class act.
He's just keeping his powder dry and his pecker hard..

In his last annual interview Khaldoon said he had very strong views on the matter which he would happily share once it was settled. Look forward to it.

 

[KS55]

Yep.
Not in terms of the chumps league but the respective league's of serie a , bundesliga and the Spanish league the past 5 years or so they fell off a cliff in terms of neutrals watching them and getting revenue.
All the top league's round Europe smell blood with how the Premier league have treated their best team and cutting their nose off to spite their face just to suit american owners and the smear campaign against city.

Do they actually smell blood? Have they said or done anything to suggest this?

 

[Holcombe bloo]

Our club will adapt to any rules, we’ll still be a top club. We have the best academy facility in the world and the largest and most successful array of world clubs in the cfg we loan from and share costs.

 

[malg]

It's shite like this that opposition fans see and believe. Regardless of what happens we will be guilty in the eyes of the thicker element of the footballing community. I know it's utter shite, but it's utter shite that people believe.

 

[Invisible Man's Bandage]

The proposed regulations aren't fully agreed yet and the next bit is to decide if player sales can be in addition to the spending cap. However it ends up I'm not going to lose any sleep over it as they won't last long. Like the current PSR regs there will be unexpected consequences and so they will be ditched and replaced by new regs that are even more convoluted. I don't expect a football regulator to have any impact in this area whatsoever.

 

[LangleyBlue1970]

It's shite like this that opposition fans see and believe. Regardless of what happens we will be guilty in the eyes of the thicker element of the footballing community. I know it's utter shite, but it's utter shite that people believe.

View attachment 116750

How good would that be? A Championship, FA Cup and CL treble?

‘The Unbelievables’.

 

[mancity dan]

 

[SilverFox2]

If it restricts our investment at City it could increase the pace of development at the CFG clubs.

I agree.

In fact the Holding Company ie CFG may make sure any short or long term profits by just City is not taxed in UK by doing exactly as you suggest.

Not sure of the current Holding Co rules but that was one of the advantages of such a structure to encourage investment in needing companies (ie newer ones) by giving tax advantage to profit makers (mature ones).

 

[manimanc]

Why Milan offices raided by Italian financial police https://football-italia.net/why-milan-offices-raided-by-italian-financial-police/

Portuguese police raid Benfica and Sporting offices in corruption inquiry https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...estigation-benfica-sporting?CMP=share_btn_url

Italian police RAID Juventus' club offices amid transfer probe https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/f...tml?ito=native_share_article-nativemenubutton

Corruption.
Offices raided.
False accounts.
Computers seized.

@projectriver

Aren't we being accused of the same or similar offence?

 

[flb]

The proposed regulations aren't fully agreed yet and the next bit is to decide if player sales can be in addition the spending cap. However it ends up I'm not going to lose any sleep over it as they won't last long. Like the current PSR regs there will be unexpected consequences and so they will be ditched and replaced by new regs that are even more convoluted. I don't expect a football regulator to have any impact in this area whatsoever.