City Launch Legal Challenge Against PL Charges & Barrister

[nottsblue]

Joe Lewis: Tottenham Hotspur owner charged over alleged insider trading

Well well well....US Cartel clubs at each others throats other now it seems - this could see the Qataris cashing in if Spurs contemptible Black Wednesday billionaire currency trader owner is found guilty and disqualified as a PL director


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-66274633

Spuds quickly trying to dampen the noise as ' not football related' haha lets see your fucking books now eh?

If it's possible, my contempt and hatred for Spuds has increased

[johnny crossan]

Here we go, US owned PL Club propaganda being pumped out by US owned client media The Athletic. Their new narrative - when the charges against City are disproved it will be because of UK government intervention - predictable & contemptible.

Manchester City’s Premier League charges discussed by UK government and Abu Dhabi

By Dan Sheldon
1h ago
________________________________________
The UK government has admitted its embassy in Abu Dhabi and the Foreign Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) in London have discussed the charges levelled at Manchester City by the Premier League, but are refusing to disclose the correspondence because it could risk the UK’s relationship with the United Arab Emirates (UAE).
In February, the Premier League directed 115 charges at City, which relate to a series of alleged breaches of financial rules between the 2009-10 and 2017-18 seasons.
City are accused by the Premier League of not providing accurate financial information, “in particular with respect to its revenue (including sponsorship revenue), its related parties and its operating costs”.
The club deny the allegations and in a previous statement pointed to “a body of irrefutable evidence” that will clear them of any wrongdoing.


GO DEEPER
Man City charges explained: The accusations, possible punishments and what happens next

On April 6, The Athletic, using the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), requested all correspondence between the FCDO in London and the British Embassy in Abu Dhabi relating the Premier League charges facing Manchester City between December 1, 2022 and March 1, 2023.
An FOI request gives people the right to ask any public authority for the information they hold on record. Once the submission has been acknowledged, the public sector organisation has 20 working days to respond it.
On May 10, the FCDO confirmed it “does hold information falling within the terms” of our request, but delayed handing over the correspondence while considering whether it is in the public interest from an international relations perspective.

And on September 6, the FCDO, citing Section 27(1)(a) of the FOIA, said: “We acknowledge that releasing information on this issue would increase public knowledge about our relations with the UAE.
“The disclosure of information detailing our relationship with the UAE government could potentially damage the bilateral relationship between the UK and the UAE.”

The Athletic has appealed this decision.

We asked Manchester City whether they had any comment in relation to the fact such correspondence exists and that if they are not state-owned or funded, then why are the UK government concerned about jeopardising relations between the UK and UAE? Manchester City did not comment.
The Premier League was asked whether it has received any correspondence at all from UK government employees in relation to the charges levelled at City. The Premier League did not respond.
Manchester City have reiterated many times that they are not state-owned or funded. The club’s owner, Sheikh Mansour, is the vice president and deputy prime minister of the UAE. His half brother, Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan, is the president of the UAE.


Sheikh Mansour (left) attended the Champions League final in June (Photo: Michael Regan – UEFA/UEFA via Getty Images)

Sheikh Mansour is the majority shareholder in Manchester City via Newton Investment and Development, a company he wholly owns, which is registered in Abu Dhabi and possesses a majority shareholding in City Football Group (CFG).
As such, it would be legally inaccurate to describe City as state-owned, despite Sheikh Mansour’s prominent political positions in the UAE and Abu Dhabi, its capital.
(my emphasis)
Although the correspondence has been sealed by the FCDO, there is no indication as to what has been said between them and the British Embassy in Abu Dhabi other than the fact City’s Premier League charges have been mentioned.
The UK and UAE has a positive bilateral relationship and in September 2021, the UAE pledged to invest £10billion (now $12.2bn) in UK clean energy, technology and infrastructure. This was in addition to previous investments totalling more than £1billion.
Since City was sold to Sheikh Mansour in September 2008, the club have won seven Premier League titles, three FA Cups, six EFL cups and one Champions League, as well as establishing CFG.
CFG operates a multi-club model, whereby the parent company owns or has stakes in multiple clubs around the world. CFG has full ownership of New York City in the USA and Melbourne City in Australia, as well as Manchester City.
The group also has investment in clubs in China, India, Japan, Uruguay, Bolivia, Belgium, Brazil and Italy.

[Im_Spartacus]

^^

You'd have thought that any article with even basic journalistic integrity would have realised that "UAE President' Khalifa Bin Zayed Al Nayhan died about 18 months ago.

This is a predictable pathway for the journos to follow, and to be fair it's a valid one too. I would find it remarkable if UAE govt hasn't made representations to the UK govt that if the dogs aren't called off, there will be serious consequences for investment into the UK.

The fact the UK won't release the information suggests some conversation has definitely taken place about the implications. That however could range from something as innocent as an internal communication wondering about whether there would be implications, right up to discussing explict threats by UAE. There's a lot of grey area between those two scenarios.

[patrickblue]

^^

You'd have thought that any article with even basic journalistic integrity would have realised that "UAE President' Khalifa Bin Zayed Al Nayhan died about 18 months ago.

This is a predictable pathway for the journos to follow, and to be fair it's a valid one too. I would find it remarkable if UAE govt hasn't made representations to the UK govt that if the dogs aren't called off, there will be serious consequences for investment into the UK.

The fact the UK won't release the information suggests some conversation has definitely taken place about the implications. That however could range from something as innocent as an internal communication wondering about whether there would be implications, right up to discussing explict threats by UAE. There's a lot of grey area between those two scenarios.

Looks to me very much that they know full well that the FA charges won't stick, and they're trying to prepare the ground for the stitch up narrative.

[Bluemoon4610]

^^

You'd have thought that any article with even basic journalistic integrity would have realised that "UAE President' Khalifa Bin Zayed Al Nayhan died about 18 months ago.

This is a predictable pathway for the journos to follow, and to be fair it's a valid one too. I would find it remarkable if UAE govt hasn't made representations to the UK govt that if the dogs aren't called off, there will be serious consequences for investment into the UK.

The fact the UK won't release the information suggests some conversation has definitely taken place about the implications. That however could range from something as innocent as an internal communication wondering about whether there would be implications, right up to discussing explict threats by UAE. There's a lot of grey area between those two scenarios.

Looks to me very much that they know full well that the FA charges won't stick, and they're trying to prepare the ground for the stitch up narrative.

Exactly this. Set the narrative so they can run with the "only got off on a technicality" line.

[carl_feedthegoat]

^^

You'd have thought that any article with even basic journalistic integrity would have realised that "UAE President' Khalifa Bin Zayed Al Nayhan died about 18 months ago.

This is a predictable pathway for the journos to follow, and to be fair it's a valid one too. I would find it remarkable if UAE govt hasn't made representations to the UK govt that if the dogs aren't called off, there will be serious consequences for investment into the UK.

The fact the UK won't release the information suggests some conversation has definitely taken place about the implications. That however could range from something as innocent as an internal communication wondering about whether there would be implications, right up to discussing explict threats by UAE. There's a lot of grey area between those two scenarios.

Looks to me very much that they know full well that the FA charges won't stick, and they're trying to prepare the ground for the stitch up narrative.

Exactly this. Set the narrative so they can run with the "only got off on a technicality" line.

As I said at the start of this whole fiasco, they will eventually charge us a small penalty fine for not releasing info and that way they can say we breached premiership FFP - any face saving shit they can come up with they will do.

[zabbadabbado]

^^

You'd have thought that any article with even basic journalistic integrity would have realised that "UAE President' Khalifa Bin Zayed Al Nayhan died about 18 months ago.

This is a predictable pathway for the journos to follow, and to be fair it's a valid one too. I would find it remarkable if UAE govt hasn't made representations to the UK govt that if the dogs aren't called off, there will be serious consequences for investment into the UK.

The fact the UK won't release the information suggests some conversation has definitely taken place about the implications. That however could range from something as innocent as an internal communication wondering about whether there would be implications, right up to discussing explict threats by UAE. There's a lot of grey area between those two scenarios.

American owned Clubs have been behind this vindictive racist Witch hunt against us.

They had designs on turning the Premier League in to the Football equivalent of WWF. Theater for the masses, huge profit for US corporations. About as Anti-competitive Football as one could ever get.Owners agreeing beforehand on what they will all spend,and which American owned Club turn it will be to win the League every year.

Other fans pathological hatred out of Jealousy us clouds their judgement..

It is not our owners they should be hating on.Owners who have pumped in Billions to develop a long term fully sustainable long term plan for the Club.And developing East Manchester.

American owned Clubs Rags/Chelsea shows all that iswrong.

[Mase]

[stupot]

So the extended North Stand could open at the start of 25/26 with us in the Championship or worse.
That'll be a record crowd for the stats and no VAR. Every cloud and all that.

[zuricity]

So the extended North Stand could open at the start of 25/26 with us in the Championship or worse.
That'll be a record crowd for the stats and no VAR. Every cloud and all that.

We'll be in the PL, this case will drag on for years.

And then we appeal and win the appeal

PL exec commitee that brought these charges are cartel supporters Alison Brittain Rags fan

[carl_feedthegoat]

So the extended North Stand could open at the start of 25/26 with us in the Championship or worse.
That'll be a record crowd for the stats and no VAR. Every cloud and all that.

I was there WHEN WE WERE SHIT and the crowds , home and away , were the best..................it wont make any difference to the real hard core fans which division we play in.

Cant say the same for those disgraceful half and half scarf wearing buffoons.

[stupot]

So the extended North Stand could open at the start of 25/26 with us in the Championship or worse.
That'll be a record crowd for the stats and no VAR. Every cloud and all that.

I was there WHEN WE WERE SHIT and the crowds , home and away , were the best..................it wont make any difference to the real hard core fans which division we play in.

Cant say the same for those disgraceful half and half scarf wearing buffoons.

I've had a season ticket since 69/70, from good to shit, shitter then good, great and the best team in the world.
Was there every home game in 98/99 and a good few away games including losing at York when we were the lowest position in our history.
Most fans near me have been there since the stadium opened in 2003. Unfortunately most don't have the cup scheme package and it's those games where you get all the tourist fans. However the atmosphere for Bayern and Real Madrid last season was as good as anything i've ever heard at home games.
Totally with you on half and half scarves, hate them.

[nottsblue]

So the extended North Stand could open at the start of 25/26 with us in the Championship or worse.
That'll be a record crowd for the stats and no VAR. Every cloud and all that.

I was there WHEN WE WERE SHIT and the crowds , home and away , were the best..................it wont make any difference to the real hard core fans which division we play in.

Cant say the same for those disgraceful half and half scarf wearing buffoons.

I've had a season ticket since 69/70, from good to shit, shitter then good, great and the best team in the world.
Was there every home game in 98/99 and a good few away games including losing at York when we were the lowest position in our history.
Most fans near me have been there since the stadium opened in 2003. Unfortunately most don't have the cup scheme package and it's those games where you get all the tourist fans. However the atmosphere for Bayern and Real Madrid last season was as good as anything i've ever heard at home games.
Totally with you on half and half scarves, hate them.

We won’t be relegated, I’m 99.9% certain of that. But if we did have to play in the Championship then so be it. I for one wouldn’t be too concerned. In the grand scheme of things a year or two not challenging for the title wouldn’t be catastrophic. We will still be here, or not here as the saying goes, and the club will carry on

But I fully expect to see us in the PL for a while yet

[zuricity]

surely if there was an issue HMG Tax inspectors would be calling around ?

[Scatman]

surely if there was an issue HMG Tax inspectors would be calling around ?

Who's to say they aren't already?

[zuricity]

surely if there was an issue HMG Tax inspectors would be calling around ?

Who's to say they aren't already?

if such had happened recently, the media would be on it and let us know.

[john68]

surely if there was an issue HMG Tax inspectors would be calling around ?

Not sure if I am correct Zurich, but if the Prem investigators had found any evidence of illegal activity, I believe they would have already been legally bound to report such illegal activities to the authorities...(police/HMRC?).
And surely, if the Prem had laid those 115 charges against City they would have done so because they had evidence of City's behaviour. Why then have they not acted on that information already?
They were quick to act against Everton, the rags etc and although a slightly different scenario, action against Abramoviic and |Chelsea were pretty swift too.

The timing of the charges, the day before the Govt was due to issue its policy on a new independent football regulatory body, leaves me to think that the Prem/FA needed to publicly show they were able to regulate the Premier League.
The original charge sheet against City contained a number of mistakes that City had to advise their Prem accusers to correct. Obviously this document was done hurriedly, quite likely to coincide or preempt the Govt announcement.

There also seems to be an issue with the secrecy of it all. The Prem have been quite open when dealing with other clubs but created a wall of silence around the City charges......Why? And, why have the Prem stated that there is no right of appeal against any verdict?

It would seem the Prem have hurriedly made the charges based on what they think City might have done but have no or not enough evidence to make those charges stick. They now seem to be trying to find the evidence, any evidence, to support those charges. If that is the case, surely charges are usually brought based on already collected evidence.

[carl_feedthegoat]

Your last point is the only defence the prem league have (apart from the charge of us not cooperating)
It’s their ‘interpretation’ of the so called breaches against ours that will decide the outcome .

[johnny crossan]

surely if there was an issue HMG Tax inspectors would be calling around ?

Not sure if I am correct Zurich, but if the Prem investigators had found any evidence of illegal activity, I believe they would have already been legally bound to report such illegal activities to the authorities...(police/HMRC?).
And surely, if the Prem had laid those 115 charges against City they would have done so because they had evidence of City's behaviour. Why then have they not acted on that information already?
They were quick to act against Everton, the rags etc and although a slightly different scenario, action against Abramoviic and |Chelsea were pretty swift too.

The timing of the charges, the day before the Govt was due to issue its policy on a new independent football regulatory body, leaves me to think that the Prem/FA needed to publicly show they were able to regulate the Premier League.
The original charge sheet against City contained a number of mistakes that City had to advise their Prem accusers to correct. Obviously this document was done hurriedly, quite likely to coincide or preempt the Govt announcement.

There also seems to be an issue with the secrecy of it all. The Prem have been quite open when dealing with other clubs but created a wall of silence around the City charges......Why? And, why have the Prem stated that there is no right of appeal against any verdict?

It would seem the Prem have hurriedly made the charges based on what they think City might have done but have no or not enough evidence to make those charges stick. They now seem to be trying to find the evidence, any evidence, to support those charges. If that is the case, surely charges are usually brought based on already collected evidence.

Very thoughtful analysis John, but the conduct of the cartel controlled racket aka the PL does not deserve such careful attention. They are bunch of corrupt parasites who have relentlessly stoked hatred of our club using their despicable client media. We should ban all their lackeys from our ground and sue the red shirt clubs until they are extinct.

[patrickblue]

surely if there was an issue HMG Tax inspectors would be calling around ?

Not sure if I am correct Zurich, but if the Prem investigators had found any evidence of illegal activity, I believe they would have already been legally bound to report such illegal activities to the authorities...(police/HMRC?).
And surely, if the Prem had laid those 115 charges against City they would have done so because they had evidence of City's behaviour. Why then have they not acted on that information already?
They were quick to act against Everton, the rags etc and although a slightly different scenario, action against Abramoviic and |Chelsea were pretty swift too.

The timing of the charges, the day before the Govt was due to issue its policy on a new independent football regulatory body, leaves me to think that the Prem/FA needed to publicly show they were able to regulate the Premier League.
The original charge sheet against City contained a number of mistakes that City had to advise their Prem accusers to correct. Obviously this document was done hurriedly, quite likely to coincide or preempt the Govt announcement.

There also seems to be an issue with the secrecy of it all. The Prem have been quite open when dealing with other clubs but created a wall of silence around the City charges......Why? And, why have the Prem stated that there is no right of appeal against any verdict?

It would seem the Prem have hurriedly made the charges based on what they think City might have done but have no or not enough evidence to make those charges stick. They now seem to be trying to find the evidence, any evidence, to support those charges. If that is the case, surely charges are usually brought based on already collected evidence.

Very thoughtful analysis John, but the conduct of the cartel controlled racket aka the PL does not deserve such careful attention. They are bunch of corrupt parasites who have relentlessly stoked hatred of our club using their despicable client media. We should ban all their lackeys from our ground and sue the red shirt clubs until they are extinct.

Indeed they have.
And by making these charges, then refusing to say or do anything about them, the PL are attempting to damage City's reputation. A lot of media opinion is now pushing the line that it;s City who are using delaying tactics with no reference to what the PL's position is.
It's like that old chestnut, the Rodri handball. That could have been cleared up and clarified at the time, but the powers that be thought it better to leave it as a stick for others to beat us with,
These charges are similar tactics IMO.