oh dear! pl charges

[Harry Dowd scored]

Further to this - :
Can a civil case lead to criminal charges?
Vice versa, a civil case can become a criminal case if substantial evidence is uncovered during the civil process that would prompt criminal investigation. A civil claim under contract law may, for instance, lead to a criminal fraud charge.

[Sparklehorse]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-11737933/Ahead-game-Manchester-Citys-furious-rivals-claim-Pep-Guardiolas-attack-libellous.html

Sounds like the cowards are retracting

To me it read like support for the PL clubs and Levy?

And me

[Dubciteh]

What i dont understand is why have we doing being doing business with any of these 9 clubs who want us fuckef…eg sending harwood bellis to burnley? Some if these ckubs should be thanking us, we must have paid a chunk of Arsenals stadium by overlaying for the shite they sent us.

[Mase]

No Mase mate, they are not saying that.
They have mentioned a rule number and a season and we have deduced that it alludes to Mancini.

It is believed to allude to a contract between Mancini and the Al Jazeera club.
What we think the Prem is accusing us of is that the Al Jazeera fee was paid by City as a shadow wage.

Even if City did pay him, the tax bill would be the responsibilty of Mancini to pay, not City. Nowt to do with City.
Mancini has every right with City's permission to make any deals with anyone he likes.
If the accusation were true. City would have failed to account for it and it would have skewed City's accounting.
Also note that FFP wasn't in force then anyway.

I get what you’re saying mate.

The employer, not employee, is responsible for deducting the tax - so it would be City who deduct tax for Mancini, who I’m assuming was PAYE. If City have been paying Mancini through a separate entity then it’s City that would also be done for tax evasion. Plus it’s their responsibility to pay ENI as well. If Mancini was earning more, then it would be more ENI that would need to be paid.

[patrickblue]

1) This not a court case.
2) The Premier League is a private organisation and as such can set any terms and conditions it chooses, as long as they are not beyond the parameters of English law.
Example;- A club can set its own standards of dress code or bar you entry.
3) The charges made against us are not specific and at this point, they assert that we broke Premier league rule. There are no charges against us that say we broke the law.
Example;- Under the Premier Leagues FFP rules,we are not allowed to spend beyond an agreed percentageof our income. That is against the Prem's rules but not against English law.
4) The investigation is concerned whether we broke rules NOT that we did anything illegal.
5) The Prem has an agreed infrastructure to deal with rule breakers;- a) It has an agreed right to investigate any rule breakers. b) It has the agreed right to set up a panel to judge. c) It has the agreed right to issue whatever sanctions it thinks fit against any rule breakers, d) It has the agreed right to set up its own panel to judge any issue, e) It has the agreed right to hear any evidence in secret, f) It has the agreed right to deny anyone sanctioned any appeal to the CAS. and g) It can set the level of proof necessary to prove guilt as long as 2/3rds of its member agree...... It is not a court of English law.
All of the above has been agreed to by all clubs in the Premier League. Added to that, any issue that has the support of 2/3rds of the members has to be accepted by the other 1/3rd.

Important to this issue is that City have not been accused of doing anything illegal, City are only accused of breaking rules set by the Prem and agreed by its members, including City..
Whether we like it or not and I certainly don't, that's what we're stuck with.

Though an appeal to CAS is denied to us, I am told that there are 2 routes of appeal to the courts;- Substantive Jurisprudence and Serious Irregularities.
I think the above terms mean that the Prem doesn'r have jurisdiction and the other is that the Prem haven't followed their own procedures properly.
If anyone can expand on those terms please do so. It would help our understanding enormously

Although what you're saying is correct, I think you're over simplifying this.
It's obvious this isn't a court case, but the PL are accusing us of supplying umpteen years of false accounts, which is very illegal.
Usually if a private organisation is disciplining an employee or member who is charged with a criminal activity, they will wait for a guilty verdict before doing so,
In this case they are taking it upon themselves to judge whether these infringements, which are also criminal have taken place.
I agree it's their organisation, and we've signed up to their rules, and technically two thirds of the membership could say we're guilty, and that would be that.
But by saying we've been falsifying published accounts, they've taken away their power to punish internally, by opening a whole new can of worms that can be challenged in a court of law.
Which is why all the legal bods are saying it will rumble on for years.

[Dimples]

1) This not a court case.
2) The Premier League is a private organisation and as such can set any terms and conditions it chooses, as long as they are not beyond the parameters of English law.
Example;- A club can set its own standards of dress code or bar you entry.
3) The charges made against us are not specific and at this point, they assert that we broke Premier league rule. There are no charges against us that say we broke the law.
Example;- Under the Premier Leagues FFP rules,we are not allowed to spend beyond an agreed percentageof our income. That is against the Prem's rules but not against English law.
4) The investigation is concerned whether we broke rules NOT that we did anything illegal.
5) The Prem has an agreed infrastructure to deal with rule breakers;- a) It has an agreed right to investigate any rule breakers. b) It has the agreed right to set up a panel to judge. c) It has the agreed right to issue whatever sanctions it thinks fit against any rule breakers, d) It has the agreed right to set up its own panel to judge any issue, e) It has the agreed right to hear any evidence in secret, f) It has the agreed right to deny anyone sanctioned any appeal to the CAS. and g) It can set the level of proof necessary to prove guilt as long as 2/3rds of its member agree...... It is not a court of English law.
All of the above has been agreed to by all clubs in the Premier League. Added to that, any issue that has the support of 2/3rds of the members has to be accepted by the other 1/3rd.

Important to this issue is that City have not been accused of doing anything illegal, City are only accused of breaking rules set by the Prem and agreed by its members, including City..
Whether we like it or not and I certainly don't, that's what we're stuck with.

Though an appeal to CAS is denied to us, I am told that there are 2 routes of appeal to the courts;- Substantive Jurisprudence and Serious Irregularities.
I think the above terms mean that the Prem doesn'r have jurisdiction and the other is that the Prem haven't followed their own procedures properly.
If anyone can expand on those terms please do so. It would help our understanding enormously

Although what you're saying is correct, I think you're over simplifying this.
It's obvious this isn't a court case, but the PL are accusing us of supplying umpteen years of false accounts, which is very illegal.
Usually if a private organisation is disciplining an employee or member who is charged with a criminal activity, they will wait for a guilty verdict before doing so,
In this case they are taking it upon themselves to judge whether these infringements, which are also criminal have taken place.
I agree it's their organisation, and we've signed up to their rules, and technically two thirds of the membership could say we're guilty, and that would be that.
But by saying we've been falsifying published accounts, they've taken away their power to punish internally, by opening a whole new can of worms that can be challenged in a court of law.
Which is why all the legal bods are saying it will rumble on for years.

That is my understanding as well.
The PL 'independent commission' will 100% find us guilty. Then we appeal to a real independent body (the courts?). That will be the defining ruling.
Same as the UEFA charge. They found us guilty, two year ban. We appeal to independent CAS, that is the ruling that counted.
I am assuming that there is some independent appeals mechanism (even though the PL will have tried to block this with their rule book).

[Mase]

1) This not a court case.
2) The Premier League is a private organisation and as such can set any terms and conditions it chooses, as long as they are not beyond the parameters of English law.
Example;- A club can set its own standards of dress code or bar you entry.
3) The charges made against us are not specific and at this point, they assert that we broke Premier league rule. There are no charges against us that say we broke the law.
Example;- Under the Premier Leagues FFP rules,we are not allowed to spend beyond an agreed percentageof our income. That is against the Prem's rules but not against English law.
4) The investigation is concerned whether we broke rules NOT that we did anything illegal.
5) The Prem has an agreed infrastructure to deal with rule breakers;- a) It has an agreed right to investigate any rule breakers. b) It has the agreed right to set up a panel to judge. c) It has the agreed right to issue whatever sanctions it thinks fit against any rule breakers, d) It has the agreed right to set up its own panel to judge any issue, e) It has the agreed right to hear any evidence in secret, f) It has the agreed right to deny anyone sanctioned any appeal to the CAS. and g) It can set the level of proof necessary to prove guilt as long as 2/3rds of its member agree...... It is not a court of English law.
All of the above has been agreed to by all clubs in the Premier League. Added to that, any issue that has the support of 2/3rds of the members has to be accepted by the other 1/3rd.

Important to this issue is that City have not been accused of doing anything illegal, City are only accused of breaking rules set by the Prem and agreed by its members, including City..
Whether we like it or not and I certainly don't, that's what we're stuck with.

Though an appeal to CAS is denied to us, I am told that there are 2 routes of appeal to the courts;- Substantive Jurisprudence and Serious Irregularities.
I think the above terms mean that the Prem doesn'r have jurisdiction and the other is that the Prem haven't followed their own procedures properly.
If anyone can expand on those terms please do so. It would help our understanding enormously

Although what you're saying is correct, I think you're over simplifying this.
It's obvious this isn't a court case, but the PL are accusing us of supplying umpteen years of false accounts, which is very illegal.
Usually if a private organisation is disciplining an employee or member who is charged with a criminal activity, they will wait for a guilty verdict before doing so,
In this case they are taking it upon themselves to judge whether these infringements, which are also criminal have taken place.
I agree it's their organisation, and we've signed up to their rules, and technically two thirds of the membership could say we're guilty, and that would be that.
But by saying we've been falsifying published accounts, they've taken away their power to punish internally, by opening a whole new can of worms that can be challenged in a court of law.
Which is why all the legal bods are saying it will rumble on for years.

That is my understanding as well.
The PL 'independent commission' will 100% find us guilty. Then we appeal to a real independent body (the courts?). That will be the defining ruling.
Same as the UEFA charge. They found us guilty, two year ban. We appeal to independent CAS, that is the ruling that counted.
I am assuming that there is some independent appeals mechanism (even though the PL will have tried to block this with their rule book).

From what I’ve read, the appeal would need to go to the High Court.

[dick dastardley]

One thing that's crossed my mind in all of this bollox, the timing of the case, it would totally disrupt our season (they hope) therefore giving other rivals an unfair advantage. If they had done this in the summer then it would have been fair and proper!! City could and should have been notified in private and then told the PL to announce their shite after the season finishes.

[john@staustell]

One thing that's crossed my mind in all of this bollox, the timing of the case, it would totally disrupt our season (they hope) therefore giving other rivals an unfair advantage. If they had done this in the summer then it would have been fair and proper!! City could and should have been notified in private and then told the PL to announce their shite after the season finishes.

On the other hand it may galvanise everyone.

Strikes me there may be potential for conspiracy charges against certain parties

[Harry Dowd scored]

1) This not a court case.
2) The Premier League is a private organisation and as such can set any terms and conditions it chooses, as long as they are not beyond the parameters of English law.
Example;- A club can set its own standards of dress code or bar you entry.
3) The charges made against us are not specific and at this point, they assert that we broke Premier league rule. There are no charges against us that say we broke the law.
Example;- Under the Premier Leagues FFP rules,we are not allowed to spend beyond an agreed percentageof our income. That is against the Prem's rules but not against English law.
4) The investigation is concerned whether we broke rules NOT that we did anything illegal.
5) The Prem has an agreed infrastructure to deal with rule breakers;- a) It has an agreed right to investigate any rule breakers. b) It has the agreed right to set up a panel to judge. c) It has the agreed right to issue whatever sanctions it thinks fit against any rule breakers, d) It has the agreed right to set up its own panel to judge any issue, e) It has the agreed right to hear any evidence in secret, f) It has the agreed right to deny anyone sanctioned any appeal to the CAS. and g) It can set the level of proof necessary to prove guilt as long as 2/3rds of its member agree...... It is not a court of English law.
All of the above has been agreed to by all clubs in the Premier League. Added to that, any issue that has the support of 2/3rds of the members has to be accepted by the other 1/3rd.

Important to this issue is that City have not been accused of doing anything illegal, City are only accused of breaking rules set by the Prem and agreed by its members, including City..
Whether we like it or not and I certainly don't, that's what we're stuck with.

Though an appeal to CAS is denied to us, I am told that there are 2 routes of appeal to the courts;- Substantive Jurisprudence and Serious Irregularities.
I think the above terms mean that the Prem doesn'r have jurisdiction and the other is that the Prem haven't followed their own procedures properly.
If anyone can expand on those terms please do so. It would help our understanding enormously

Although what you're saying is correct, I think you're over simplifying this.
It's obvious this isn't a court case, but the PL are accusing us of supplying umpteen years of false accounts, which is very illegal.
Usually if a private organisation is disciplining an employee or member who is charged with a criminal activity, they will wait for a guilty verdict before doing so,
In this case they are taking it upon themselves to judge whether these infringements, which are also criminal have taken place.
I agree it's their organisation, and we've signed up to their rules, and technically two thirds of the membership could say we're guilty, and that would be that.
But by saying we've been falsifying published accounts, they've taken away their power to punish internally, by opening a whole new can of worms that can be challenged in a court of law.
Which is why all the legal bods are saying it will rumble on for years.

That is my understanding as well.
The PL 'independent commission' will 100% find us guilty. Then we appeal to a real independent body (the courts?). That will be the defining ruling.
Same as the UEFA charge. They found us guilty, two year ban. We appeal to independent CAS, that is the ruling that counted.
I am assuming that there is some independent appeals mechanism (even though the PL will have tried to block this with their rule book).

But as I keep saying, if they find us guilty it effectively means we are guilty of fraud and possibly issue with HMRC, this means it ceases to be a civil case and will enter criminal law, the CPS could get involved so the PL would be powerless, and would not be able to stop City going to appellate courts.

[ruralblue]

1) This not a court case.
2) The Premier League is a private organisation and as such can set any terms and conditions it chooses, as long as they are not beyond the parameters of English law.
Example;- A club can set its own standards of dress code or bar you entry.
3) The charges made against us are not specific and at this point, they assert that we broke Premier league rule. There are no charges against us that say we broke the law.
Example;- Under the Premier Leagues FFP rules,we are not allowed to spend beyond an agreed percentageof our income. That is against the Prem's rules but not against English law.
4) The investigation is concerned whether we broke rules NOT that we did anything illegal.
5) The Prem has an agreed infrastructure to deal with rule breakers;- a) It has an agreed right to investigate any rule breakers. b) It has the agreed right to set up a panel to judge. c) It has the agreed right to issue whatever sanctions it thinks fit against any rule breakers, d) It has the agreed right to set up its own panel to judge any issue, e) It has the agreed right to hear any evidence in secret, f) It has the agreed right to deny anyone sanctioned any appeal to the CAS. and g) It can set the level of proof necessary to prove guilt as long as 2/3rds of its member agree...... It is not a court of English law.
All of the above has been agreed to by all clubs in the Premier League. Added to that, any issue that has the support of 2/3rds of the members has to be accepted by the other 1/3rd.

Important to this issue is that City have not been accused of doing anything illegal, City are only accused of breaking rules set by the Prem and agreed by its members, including City..
Whether we like it or not and I certainly don't, that's what we're stuck with.

Though an appeal to CAS is denied to us, I am told that there are 2 routes of appeal to the courts;- Substantive Jurisprudence and Serious Irregularities.
I think the above terms mean that the Prem doesn'r have jurisdiction and the other is that the Prem haven't followed their own procedures properly.
If anyone can expand on those terms please do so. It would help our understanding enormously

For us across the border John? Am I correct in think it's along these lines....

I've won the lottery and always fancied farming. I take a liking to a farm down the road that has struggled for years. Said Farm hasn't really won many prizes for its cattle or sheep for years. Occasionally it's had a good year and been in a position to enter some competitions but not really won anything, its milking quota has been up and down. The other farms around have had better investment and they are always taking home the rosettes and First in Class.
So I heavily Invest in my farm and buy the best of everything. I win a couple of Firsts at Yorkshire Show and other farmers start to get fucked off. Im also seeing a good increase in my sales at the Cattle Mart. They make a right fuss to the Farmers Union who then decide to change all the rules to make farming harder for me. The other farms are losing money hand over fist but they all sit on the Farning Union board and influence the rules.

Only way I can carry on is to find loopholes to allow me to carry on investing my lottery win to make my farm the best. I'm doing nothing unlawful just finding ways around their rules.

Given time I'm smashing it, best herdsmen, finest Hebradian Cows and the Finest prize winning Texal Mules.

Farmers down road are kicking up more of a fuss to the Farming Union and lay a load of sanctions on my farm, they want me booted and its all the act of jealousy.

Farmers Union cannot find me guilty of anything vit my reputation in the Village is now fucked. However I'm not backing down as I've done fuck all wrong my herdsmen rally round and we continue to fight for our rightful place being the best farm around.

Something like that John????

Hope ya well told bean!

[nottsblue]

Love it Rural

[patrickblue]

One thing that's crossed my mind in all of this bollox, the timing of the case, it would totally disrupt our season (they hope) therefore giving other rivals an unfair advantage. If they had done this in the summer then it would have been fair and proper!! City could and should have been notified in private and then told the PL to announce their shite after the season finishes.

I'm pretty sure that fact will be put forward as part of our defence.

[Bluemoon4610]

One thing that's crossed my mind in all of this bollox, the timing of the case, it would totally disrupt our season (they hope) therefore giving other rivals an unfair advantage. If they had done this in the summer then it would have been fair and proper!! City could and should have been notified in private and then told the PL to announce their shite after the season finishes.

I'm pretty sure that fact will be put forward as part of our defence.

I'm convinced that the timing of the announcement proves that this whole episode is driven by malicious intent, both by the PL and the clubs pushing them to bring these charges.

[john68]

Harry,
I fully understand what you are saying mate but we are not as yet being investigated by the HMRC.
If it were the HMRC who were accusing us, then this would be investigated by them, refered to the CPS and tried by a court of law.
and your point obviously stands.

As it is, we are being investigated by a private institution and they do not have the powers to enforce English Law, they could if they wished, take their evidence to the HMRC but as a private institution, they can only enforce their own rules as they have been agreed by the Premier League members.

The Premier League have no right to judge and prosecute the legality of City's accounting, they are not part of the judicial system.

[john68]

Further to this - :
Can a civil case lead to criminal charges?
Vice versa, a civil case can become a criminal case if substantial evidence is uncovered during the civil process that would prompt criminal investigation. A civil claim under contract law may, for instance, lead to a criminal fraud charge.

I fully agree with that Harry, with the caviat that the Prem Lge, as a private body, or person in law, does not have any jurisdiction and can only report their findings to the investigative and judicial system.

That does however remain an option for them,

Personally, I think that City would welcome that and are likely to be already preparing their legal team for that outcome.
City have intimated they are angered that matters they believed had been sorted out after the initial FFP deal years ago were dug up by UEFA again in theUEFA investigation. CAS deemed them out of time and City lost the chance to settle these matters once and for all.
Now the Prem have dug them up again and seem intent on prosecting and judging Cit...but subversively in secret.
It seems obvious that City feel that the football establishment, of which the Prem is a major controller is against City and City have no trustin the FA or this secretive process.
Being reported and having these matters heard in an open, transparent court of law would allow City to lay these matters to rest once and for all.

[Harry Dowd scored]

Harry,
I fully understand what you are saying mate but we are not as yet being investigated by the HMRC.
If it were the HMRC who were accusing us, then this would be investigated by them, refered to the CPS and tried by a court of law.
and your point obviously stands.

As it is, we are being investigated by a private institution and they do not have the powers to enforce English Law, they could if they wished, take their evidence to the HMRC but as a private institution, they can only enforce their own rules as they have been agreed by the Premier League members.

The Premier League have no right to judge and prosecute the legality of City's accounting, they are not part of the judicial system.

I agree with you John, but the point I was trying to make was, if the panel find us guilty our accounts will not be valid, therefore at that point HMRC could get involved and the CPS, they don’t have to be referred they can initiate investigation if there is probable cause.

[johnny crossan]

Swiss Ramble view - Guilty as charged? Maybe but we'll have to wait a few years to find out.
https://swissramble.substack.com/p/manc ... he-premier

[patrickblue]

If the FA say we are guilty, then by definition they are saying we have published fraudulent accounts.
The it's up to whoever the legal entities to prosecute for fraud, and possibly HMRC for tax avoidance.
If we're found not guilty of fraud, that then says the FA are lying, incompetent or both.
We have been charged by the FA of breaking their rules by our own criminal actions,.
Whatever happens, we have redress to law
It would seem an extraordinarily risky thing to do on the part of the FA.

[zuricity]

If the FA say we are guilty, then by definition they are saying we have published fraudulent accounts.
The it's up to whoever the legal entities to prosecute for fraud, and possibly HMRC for tax avoidance.
If we're found not guilty of fraud, that then says the FA are lying, incompetent or both.
We have been charged by the FA of breaking their rules by our own criminal actions,.
Whatever happens, we have redress to law
It would seem an extraordinarily risky thing to do on the part of the FA.

This is what happens when slimeballs get elected or employed in "Charities " like the PL. Make no mistake there are useless tossers with connections that have been given millions of pounds - mainly because Murdoch Sky company wanted the business . On the gravy train. Again it's like when Baldrick asked how we go from one state of affairs to the other ( How did the War start ? replies Edmund B). We got to this state because of Apathy and being apolitical ( in the sense of managing Football in the Country). The mere fact that so many sponsors of Football clubs are Betting Companies tells you where we are going.

An Ombudsman can't arrive fast enough. It is not envy, jealousy but annoyance that comes to the fore. I simply do not understand how these leeches on Football in the PL get away with it. Is it English Apathy ? Why aren't these Adminstrators of the PL being named ? They somehow disappear like vapour into thin air. Having collected their salaries . It is not acceptable these days. Why aren't the BBC , ITV , Sky ( yes i know ) all over these adminstrators demanding interviews with them. The BBC pays money to broadcast Football ! They should be on this like a rash (ford).