PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

As BamberBridgeBlue says, if there was evidence of criminal conduct, you might expect the Police to have figured in the process before now

That said, it is possible to allege conduct in disciplinary proceedings which would amount to a crime if pursued by the CPS in the Crown Court. In a criminal court that requires proof so that a jury is 'sure' that the wrongdoing occurred and the defendant was responsible.

The rule when alleging misconduct in disciplinary proceedings is that the party alleging wrongdoing proves its case on the balance of probabilities or, putting it another way, whether it is more likely than not that the wrongdoing occurred.

If the wrongdoing in a civil case amounts to a crime, the burden of proof remains proof on the balance of probabilities, i.e. is the court or tribunal satisfied to at least 51% that a case of wrongdoing has been made out by the party making the allegation
 
give it to gordon said:
It's great isn't it !

CTID



Don't let the bastards grind you down.
Click to expand...
I completely agree - I am starting to get really frustrated at the shit us fans are having to deal with … over a prolonged period of time. And you get very little back from the owners on this … I appreciate their position but sometimes it feels like they could do more to protect the fans.
 
argyle said:
Not a chance. Our media department bends over backwards for these bastards.

I know a solicitor that worked for City and when I asked why journalists and organisations weren't being sued or banned he said it's because our media department are friends with them all.

Not to keep the enemy close either.

Think they have a genuine belief that one day we might be praised the way the red shirts are.
Click to expand...
I think your solicitor mate needs to go back to law school, in the vast majority of cases the journalists and organisations step up to the mark, not cross it as to what they can say. IF City chooses to sue them they would loose and, even if they won what would gained, a small three line apology on the inner pages that no one sees or reads. How much executive time would be wasted? With respect to banning them then City have a contract via the rights to provide for them to band they would have to have very good reason otherwise they would be in breach of other PL rules. Maybe would solicitor mate needs to reflect on why he USE to work for City?
 
Sean Connery had the correct idea:

They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. *That's* the *Chicago* way! And that's how you get these Premier League Cunts. Now do you want to do that? Are you ready to do that? I'm offering you a deal. Do you want this deal?
 
Kinkys Left Foot said:
My feelings on this are exactly the same as they were before the latest round of media hit job pieces in the Athletic by the buck toothed rag and other outlets.

1. Etihad
I believe they have nothing but the emails and all of those (including the full run, so some not used by UEFA referred to by "Magic Twat" on X as some kind of silver bullet) are insufficient on their own to prove the actual conduct they partly infer took place. City and Etihad Bank statements, accounts and documents with additional testimony from senior management involved in the transactions of both parties, acting as rebuttal evidence, sufficiently prove the monies came from Etihad central funds and ADEC - NOT ADUG.
54 of the charges fail if the PL cannot prove this.

2. Etisalat
The subject of Piers Morgans' wet dream youtube programme and supposed mystery man and the loaned 30 million is a red herring. The monies are properly accounted for in everyone's expense and receivables (incoming and outgoing accounts) as a loan from an intermediary as a method of up front sponsorship payment when only pre contract agreements were in place. In any event without proof of fraud these will AGAIN be outside any limitation period. This time by the 6 year limitation applied by UK law, not 5 year UEFA rule.

3. Aabar / AD Tourist Board
Prior to the 2014 UEFA NDA sanction agreement (the pinch) these 2nd tier two sponsorships were alleged by UEFA to be above FMV. i believe also alleged by UEFA to be related parties. Whilst City are on record dissenting those UEFA opinions the sponsorship values were adjusted down and accepted going forward. Nothing to see here and no indication the PL are interested in either sponsorship value.

4. Fordham Ltd (image rights)
A temporary company vehicle created to generate approx 25 million income by the centralisation and purchase of player image rights from City when we desperately needed supplementary revenue. Like selling a hotel to yourself, it was creative accounting to generate income. There was no skullduggary it was a loophole we used to boost the coffers so as not to fail the 3 year deficit allowance. It was shut down subsequently and image rights given / sold back to club or players. HMRC seemed happy it wasn't used to evade tax as was the case at other clubs, so again, seemingly nothing to see here.

5. Mancini / Toure - remuneration
The PL have to prove that City did not declare the money paid to Mancini, 1.75 mill per annum, by the Abu Dhabi football club Al Jazeera Sports Cultural Club through Sparkleglow Ltd (a Mancini owned company) arranged by ADUG was part of his City remuneration package. If there are separate employment contracts whose obligations are agreed and met by both parties it is difficult to see how it can be proved by the PL. There also seems some confusion as to if the PL are trying to a) include this remuneration money as part of the charge of "failing to submit accurate fincial information" for those years it was paid up to 2013. Clearly it would appear these annual amounts, if proven to be such as alleged, would likely be insufficient to create a "false financial picture" of the accounts on their own.
Or b) simply imply it was omitted from Mancinis full salary declarations by City which is a breach of a current rule in the PL handbook but unsure if it breaches such a rule, if proven, from 2011- 2013.
The inclusion of Toure seems somewhat of an anomaly here and I'm unsure where the link to him comes from the list of PL charges. It seems to come from the media in the wake of the allegations however not all media outlets include Toure in any overview of the charges. Where he does appear it seems a generic inclusion in accusations of image rights payments although his agent, Seluk, like Mancini, deny both any wrongdoing or that they have been approached by the PL for either a statement or comments.
The whole thing seems a stretch by the PL and considering the sums involved in comparison to the main charges a spaghetti against the wall overreach.

6. None co-operation
Due to the seriousness of these charges City have quite rightly argued every point of law where doubt has arisen. For one, City appealed that the Independant Panel was not the appropriate venue for such serious matters to be decided. Although the courts have ruled against City in most, if not all our appeals, City have clearly laid a marker that they will not take any adverse decision lightly. However no appeal for court decisions can be deemed to be none co-operation. There are other Internet myths propagated by the likes of Simon Jordan that City appealed the inclusion of Murray Rosen on the panel as he is an Arsenal supporter and Season Ticket holder. Made all the more ridiculous by the fact that Citys primary advocate KC, Lord Pannick is also an Arsenal fan and supporter.
City say they have co-operated by the sheer volume of material supplied to the PL that rebutts their allegations but the details of alleged none co-operation by the PL are not listed and each (35 at least) will be argued out in front of the panel and it will be for them to decide such matters.
In any event if in some matters City have been none co-operative it will have been on legal advice for good reason and we would have to face the financial penalty for so doing. There is no sporting advantage from such breaches therefore no sporting sanction (points reduction etc) can be attributed to those charges.

So in summing up I am unmoved from my original position which I took some time ago that I am confident that the serious charges are unlikely to be proven and the other matters seem wishy washy at best. We'll all have to wait and see.
I believe our Chairman and Chief Exec when they say we've done nothing wrong.

If we come out of this relatively unscathed as I suspect, I want some fucking heads on sticks, starting with that **** Masters.
We should be relentless in going after media wankers who want to continue the no smoke without fire narrative. I'd like to see us make an example of a gobshite like Collymore or Aldridge even Goldbridge (yes you Brent) who can't keep their traps shut and think they are beyond reach.
This whole fiasco has been a media witchunt, an enormous smear campaign against the club and its fans over 10 years. Let's not get mad, let's get even!
Click to expand...
Thank you for this comprehensive analysis. Heads on sticks indeed.
 
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.