oh dear! pl charges

[Harry Dowd scored]

I think the narrative is changing already. - :

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footb ... -lawn.html

The narrative of the article still had plenty of Sly digs. Extravagant training facilities. Reserve stadium the envy of league 1/2 clubs paid by petrodollars.

Hopefully Pep's presser will have made a few people think about the situation

Correct, but for loathsome Ladyman, who normally hates City with a vengeance it’s a step change. On Monday this creep was all about us being tarnished and the titles we have won would have asterisk against them, context here.

[Dimples]

An aside re sport in the USA.
Saw a Bill Blur clip re the NBA being 'low key rigged'. Seemingly, if one team gets to far ahead, then the losing side get awarded dodgy fouls and resulting throws until the margin is closed. That keeps the audience tuned and gives the pundits scope to hype things up at the breaks.
Also, the NBA and the NFL are registered as entertainment organizations which means match fixing is technically illegal.

This is what the Yanks are doing with the PL, using VAR, Refs, Cards, disrupting play, advantage rule, etc... Look at any Red team's game where they need help and it is obvious (or any City game).

Does anyone know what type of organization the PL is registered as?

[Bluemoon4610]

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha Haaland has made them apologise for saying he wants to leave Fucking love this

https://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/1733212/Erling-Haaland-correction-Man-City/amp

So he's made the Express apologise, but not these cuntz?
https://www.football365.com/news/haalan ... ship-crack
Go get these, too, Erling!

[failsworthblue]

I have not posted on here for a long time.

Our club will always remain no matter what .

We have the best owners in World Football.

[Harry Dowd scored]

I have not posted on here for a long time.

Our club will always remain no matter what .

We have the best owners in World Football.

Well said, who could argue with that.

[branny]

Cheesy's latest vlog on YouTube is both interesting and encouraging.

[Mase]

Cheesy's latest vlog on YouTube is both interesting and encouraging.

What’s he said mate? He heard anything from the club?

[Nick]

Hahah yes ErlinG

[branny]

Cheesy's latest vlog on YouTube is both interesting and encouraging.

What’s he said mate? He heard anything from the club?

His guest is Colin Savage who has had an interest in our finances since 2005 and writes for King of the Kippax. He goes into a bit more detail over the charges and explains City's side of things on them. He said that he obviously doesn't have full disclosure of the charges but he doesn't seem overly concerned about our position.

[Mase]

Cheesy's latest vlog on YouTube is both interesting and encouraging.

What’s he said mate? He heard anything from the club?

His guest is Colin Savage who has had an interest in our finances since 2005 and writes for King of the Kippax. He goes into a bit more detail over the charges and explains City's side of things on them. He said that he obviously doesn't have full disclosure of the charges but he doesn't seem overly concerned about our position.

Brilliant, thank you

[Outcast]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footb ... llous.html

Sounds like the cowards are retracting

[Dimples]

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?

[Outcast]

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?

They'll deny they ganged up on us, they'll happily throw Levy under the bus to save themselves if they had to. The support for him behind the scene is just a smoke screen, these fuckers are for themselves. How many of them will come out and officially defend him?

[john68]

Quite interesting take on it.

Watch on youtube.com

It’s like I said previously they are saying our auditors are either inefficient or bent over a nine year period, that for me is laughable, also he has reiterated what I said about burden of proof, they have to prove City guilty beyond any doubt, EUFA failed and so will the PL. However it cannot end there, you cannot accuse a huge business like City of cooking the books for nine years, fail to prove it and not end up with severe consequences, this will have serious repercussions for the PL, be in no doubt things will never be the same. I would not be surprised if the government got involved forcing a regulator to supervise the running of the PL.

Sorry for the delay and going backwards, but am just catching up on some of this thread.

In a criminal case, the prosecutors have to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
This is not a criminal cas, therefore the verdict is based only on the balance of probabilities.

They do not have to prove absolute guilt but that the weight of evidence shows it was highly likely.
This applies in all civil cases

[Harry Dowd scored]

Quite interesting take on it.

Watch on youtube.com

It’s like I said previously they are saying our auditors are either inefficient or bent over a nine year period, that for me is laughable, also he has reiterated what I said about burden of proof, they have to prove City guilty beyond any doubt, EUFA failed and so will the PL. However it cannot end there, you cannot accuse a huge business like City of cooking the books for nine years, fail to prove it and not end up with severe consequences, this will have serious repercussions for the PL, be in no doubt things will never be the same. I would not be surprised if the government got involved forcing a regulator to supervise the running of the PL.

Sorry for the delay and going backwards, but am just catching up on some of this thread.

In a criminal case, the prosecutors have to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
This is not a criminal cas, therefore the verdict is based only on the balance of probabilities.

They do not have to prove absolute guilt but that the weight of evidence shows it was highly likely.
This applies in all civil cases

Yes, but they have to prove a level of guilt, they cannot conclude they were probably guilty, not on an issue that ultimately could involve HMRC, and question the integrity of the audit process over the best part of a decade. Therefore there has to be more than just probable cause in a case of this magnitude.

[john68]

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

[nottsblue]

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

Very succinctly put John. Based on that though it makes a witch hunt more feasible and likely to actually succeed

[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

Sorry John, but they’re saying we paid Mancini two salaries, one through the books and one via another country. Isn’t that some sort of tax evasion? If Mancini had received what they’re saying is the full amount via Manchester City instead of split - he’d have paid more tax to HMRC. How can you say, there are no charges against us that say we broke the law?!

[john68]

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.

[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

Yea, but they are putting into question the efficacy of our auditors and the whole audit process which takes this to a different level. I know I have been an auditor and been on the receiving of a audit process. Therefore we are touching on criminal law here, not just civil law. That is why I stand by my previous post. They have to prove we are guilty. The fact we are not innocent by definition brings into play tax evasion and fraud which is most certainly not civil law but criminal and potentially could result in the executive being prosecuted.