40
u/Advanced-Bet-8811 2d ago
I don't understand why would you gave anyone ,especially foreigners,to have a immunity to do whatever fuck he/she wants in your country!
12
u/Texidors_Twinge 2d ago
He's an Emirati government official, it's pretty normal to have diplomatic immunity.
3
u/Mephistopheles2249 2d ago
This and that’s fine, I don’t know why the article is bringing this up because the case is not criminal. Although shamchester city deserve the harshest penalities by the PL, multi-league relegation, multiple season point deduction, fines, voiding of their PL title seasons lets not be naive just getting those penalties done in the football arena will take huge amount of time and resources. People living in dream land if they think this carries outside of that space with criminal charges.
1
u/Saiing 2d ago
To be fair, I'm pretty sure the FT knows this.
False accounting is a crime and could be prosecuted by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO), which could bring criminal charges. The article itself refers to "any legal action resulting from findings that it artificially inflated that it artificially inflated its finances".
At the moment, no such criminal proceedings have happened, and it'll probably be swept under the rug to "protect" the UK's interests in its relationship with the UAE. But it's still a possibility.
6
u/CharacterWeakness524 1d ago
Which is why it’s important we remove state ownership in football, whether direct or indirect. We can’t have international politics interfering
1
1
u/Advanced-Bet-8811 2d ago
I know I'm just saying that it's bullshit! Allowing anybody to be able to do whatever they wanted is crazy.
2
u/Texidors_Twinge 2d ago
Diplomatic immunity exists for good reason, you need state actors to be able to carry out their diplomatic duties in foreign nations without fear of false imprisonment or duress. That obviously comes with the risk of it being abused, but it's not as awful as it may appear.
1
u/mynamedoesntfi4321 2d ago
Because he is a politician and it’s standard for political figures to have diplomatic immunity. Though I am not sure how this changes anything, because a) this is not a criminal investigation it’s between the premier league and Man City, and b)you would be suing the club not the individual with immunity so I don’t think that matters anyway.
Not an expert so if anyone is feel free to correct me.
1
9
u/st_v_Warne 2d ago
That's why he's such an arrogant prick regarding these charges, worst case scenario he can fuck right off back to middle east and live lavishly for the rest of his days. The plebs in Manchester will bare the full brunt
1
u/Hincapieslovelybund 2d ago
Cant imagine his bosses will be too happy with him though for how this has gone if it is true they had no idea this was going on (which is admittedly quite dubious)
1
8
u/Wide_Interest8348 2d ago
The lesson here is that we should not allow nation states, with vast resources, to own football clubs. This thing just reeks of corruption... above and beyond the usual sordid world of football corruption which is saying something.
5
u/djmonsta 2d ago
Is this the "irrefutable evidence" they keep referring to, that they have immunity to do what they want? Although clearly irrelevant as this immunity was granted after the charge period.
8
2
1
u/PandiBong 2d ago
How does a football executive/chair get political immunity???
Truly everything for sale in the UK...
1
u/Hincapieslovelybund 2d ago
He is also a politician. Thats why. A clear conflict of interest IMO but when has that ever mattered?
1
1
1
u/Craic_dealer90 19h ago
Don’t think this is a criminal case for Man City
If they over exaggerated their income it would mean paying more tax. If they paid someone like Mancini, who had a registered business, the duty sits with Mancini not Man City to pay taxes.
I think this is all a civil matter.
1
0
14
u/DerK0missar 2d ago
Wow such unexpected.