PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[BAB.DAB]

City?
Leicester

 

[mattcity5]

Probably needs making clear it’s about Everton then and not something issued about City.

I expect he will, I think there's a point to it. But we'll see, maybe I'm just hoping.

 

[mattcity5]

City?
Leicester

That'd make sense, forgot about them!

 

[meltonblue]

I think the details listed are for Everton. I think Stefan is possibly partly attempting a wind-up, but also pointing out what it says re Everton not co-operating and then considering how that applies to us also.

Just guessing though.

It doesn’t read like it given his comment on it, reads like he’s saying it’s referring to us.

Don’t think Everton were done for non co-operation, theirs was misleading information wasn’t it?

 

[mattcity5]

It doesn’t read like it given his comment on it, reads like he’s saying it’s referring to us.

Don’t think Everton were done for non co-operation, theirs was misleading information wasn’t it?

Everton had an element of not helping the investigation as much as they could have, but as someone else further up mentioned, it could well be Leicester. Would make more sense with Stefan's intro.

 

[waspish]

I'd imagine if they r going in heavy on the cooperation charges they haven't got much else. Also non cooperation can only be punished with a fine I'd imagine??

Said this last year that they will ask for loads of files that we say nope that's not relevant so they have the none corporation over us for ever more and they can always say we know why they not cooperated they must of cheated!

 

[BlueAnorak]

It doesn’t read like it given his comment on it, reads like he’s saying it’s referring to us.

Don’t think Everton were done for non co-operation, theirs was misleading information wasn’t it?

The fact they published their guilt in the accounts is why they were punished.

 

[Newman Noggs]

Interesting.

"The Club] has consistently pushed back on the PL’s requests. For example, [the Club] initially provided disclosure only in PDF format, without metadata; [the Club] provided “load files” but no “parent / child relationships” were identified between documents, which [the Club] refused to resolve, instead saying that it would respond to any specific queries; when the PL raised such queries, it took two weeks to respond, and [the Club] again refused to provide parent / child relationships; and certain disclosure requests remain outstanding"

They are cheeky bastards. The club is quite right to "push back" and respond "only to specific requests". It's a central tenet of investigations, and good practice, that requirements (or requests) should be "specific" and relevant. We haven't seen the "requests", but unless the original "request" asked specifically for the metadata there's no way it should have been volunteered.

Secondly, asking for the metadata implies a belief on the part of the PL that the material that had been provided, had been tampered with. A serious allegation to make unless you have good grounds for believing it to be the case.

As for taking two whole weeks to respond, in the context of a 4 year enquiry, that's hardly heinous and even less, so if it corresponded to a holiday period.

 

[waspish]

I have never been entirely sanguine about the issue of co-operation either with UEFA or with PL. There are some things we would not want to disclose for confidentiality reasons and that might reasonably be argued but we seem to refuse some requests for no discernible reason.
If we have irrefutable evidence of our innocence, why withhold data?

Because the irrefutable evidence is out accounts that were all passed and fine! What they doing when you do a deep dive into accounts is they come across something and say we want to see this and we say that's nought today with our accounts! It's all to muddy the water and keep the narrative that we are guilty!

 

[ayrshire_blue]

Key an eye on this. You will enjoy it... give it an hour or so

Hahaha