PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

petrusha said:
TL, DR - There's nothing new in the public domain since February 2023 that justifies a change in how we view this case. The circumstances then allowed us to look with cautious optimism, and the same is the case now.

* * *

I'm waiting for the final verdict with a lot of interest beyond just that I hold as a City fan. I really do think that, on the face of it, the things we know don't really add up at this stage. Obviously, there's so little in the public domain that anything we posit on here is conjecture and doesn't contribute much of value to the debate, but for the little they're worth, my best guesses are as follows.

I suspect that we'll see in the fullness of time that the PL has overreached, making a number of accusations that really shouldn't have been prosecuted based on the evidence available. In this hypothetical scenario, we'd see that they'd have been better focusing on a smaller range of matters where it was much clearer cut that there was a case to answer.

That the proceedings are so lengthy is due to the incredibly voluminous evidence that requires to be examined. I suspect that City have provided most of it. This is hardly surprising given that the club is literally fighting for its survival as a major player in English and European football. We're clearly going to leave no stone unturned in defending ourselves.

We're not going to dispense with documentary evidence we think important or decline to call witnesses who'll give testimony that we think matters just so we can shave a little time off the duration of the proceedings. This is likely to be especially the case if I'm correct in my belief that the club in these proceedings is aiming for a verdict that overall amounts to a vindication rather than merely denoting a failure on the PL's part to furnish sufficiently strong proof of guilt.

In addition, the PL has backed itself into a corner. In more normal circumstances, a regulatory authority in its position might at least consider whether it should prosecute a smaller number of alleged breaches. I believe that the febrile public mood surrounding these proceedings and the manifest ill-will that has developed between the parties not only in this context precludes any such move. External and internal pressures along with the certain demise of the current PL leadership should the verdict largely go against it mean that it, too, will fight to the last.

I don't particularly see the substantive charges as likely to give rise to anything muddy or unclear. They almost all entail accusations of fraudulent conduct and probably entail criminal conspiracies with persons from outside the club. Either the PL in each separate instance can produce cogent evidence to demonstrate that those things are more likely than not to have happened, which is a pretty tough hurdle, or the individual 'charge' fails.

I think that's quite clear-cut. This isn't a mediation, where the aim is for a neutral third-party to bring two warring factions together and thus entails producing something to keep everybody happy. It involves a Panel of highly eminent and dispassionate professionals going, as far as their verdict is concerned, where the evidence takes them. For reasons outlined in earlier discussions, I trust them to do that job properly and with genuine skill.

One factual paragraph among the speculation, which, though I discussed the issue in my previous post, bears repetition. 'Technical breaches' before February 2017 are time-barred under the Limitation Act 1980. Anything before that date is only in play if City are guilty of fraud or deliberate concealment. Again, the PL has to produce cogent evidence showing that it's more likely than not for those events to have occurred, Maybe the PL can, but it's no simple task.

Thus, if the above is wrong and City are found guilty of substantive charges that entail fraudulent conduct, that will have happened because a neutral and superbly qualified Panel will have decided that there was persuasive evidence of the club probably being guilty. If that happens, it doesn't suggest that the determination was murky or unclear. It means we most likely did what we've been accused of, and we'll have to suck up the consequences.

I tend to think the risk there is greater in terms of the more minor matters at issue. With regard to the Mancini contract with Al-Jazira, for instance, it's not impossible to foresee a tribunal concluding that it was a sham designed to protect an employee from paying additional UK tax if there were no evidence he ever provided consultancy services to the Emirati club or other proof to suggest that the contract was genuinely performed. Again, though, this is an absolute guess given that the evidence needed to make a determination isn't publicly available.

Non-cooperation is obviously a different matter in that it's clearly more subjective. Again, we don't know enough to be sure, but I have a feeling we might go down on this one. That said, who can tell? I discussed it with a rag former colleague who's a litigation partner at a top UK firm and he thought that, to the extent any instances of alleged non-cooperation followed the High Court ruling on the point and City had complied with the Court's conclusions thereafter, our case would be fairly strong, but again this involves guessing in the absence of evidence.

In any event, a finding of non-cooperation shouldn't entail the catastrophic consequences for City that would result from defeat on the most serious points. Arguably it shouldn't result in a sporting sanction (i.e. a points deduction) at all and the appropriate punishment should be a fine. I don't have the time to check now, but I seem to recall the PL has been pushing for points deductions for non-cooperation in PSR cases, though, so we may receive a small one.

As far as how the media and rival fans might interpret a positive verdict for City, I simply say that they can fuck themselves to the extent they spout the kinds of half-truths and outright lies that did the rounds after the CAS Award was announced.

Anyway, all this speculation is a fool's errand so that's enough from me. I'm happy to play the fool for some time while I wait for someone to provide the input I need to take an important piece of work forward, but I have it now and so I'd better stop (to the relief, no doubt, of any masochist who's made it this far).

In doing so, I'll just add one thing. It seems to me that the length of time we have to wait for a determination is getting to people, which I do understand, but we just have to be patient. The bottom line is that there's no more information in the public domain than there was in February 2023 that allows us to judge one way or the other. The key principles are the same, though, and still provide grounds for cautious optimism as far as I see:
  1. The Panel will make a legal determination in relation to each 'charge' as to whether the PL has met the required standard of proof for MCFC to be found guilty;
  2. In doing so, its members will conduct a thorough and unbiased examination of all the evidence, which will relate to matters which their professional expertise makes them eminently qualified to determine;
  3. The PL faces a difficult task in relation to the standard of proof for most of the 'charges', because, given their nature, particularly cogent evidence showing that City are more likely than not to be guilty;
  4. Taking account of what's in the public domain concerning most of the likely subject matter of the 'charges', it's difficult to see with many of them, including the most serious ones, what evidence the PL might realistically have to allow the Panel to conclude that the necessary standard of proof has been met.
Anyway, please insert the usual disclaimers here. Everything depends on the evidence, so in the unlikely event that it holds unwelcome surprises for us, then don't quote this post when the appeal's over and we kick off the 2026/27 season in National League North against Buxton.
Click to expand...

Thank you very much for sharing your considered expertise and insight.
 
Can’t see how forcing a club ownership to sell would be lawful in anything other than abnormal circumstances such as government sanctions or war against that country.

Not that I’m taking the report too seriously.
 
sir baconface said:
Can’t see how forcing a club ownership to sell would be lawful in anything other than abnormal circumstances such as government sanctions or war against that country.

Not that I’m taking the report too seriously.
Click to expand...
The question we should be asking is what would be the appetite for our owners to remain in charge and invest in the club when everyone appears to be against them?
 
You’d think that current US club owners wouldn’t want to take possible future buyers of their clubs out of the picture. If one day I was thinking of selling up then I’d want as many wealth funds as possible out bidding each other.
 
Oldham Exile said:
Guys - it's just a dickhead redscouse fan - doing what they do best

Being a ****
Click to expand...

Amazing really, the other day I got told from a Liverpool fan that the Govt would step into help us beat the 115.

Now the Govt are going to kick us out of the league.

My guess is neither one or the other!!
 
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.