PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[norman]

Not wanting commercially sensitive information given to our rivals? Its not like PL is an independent body that is confidential I'm pretty sure that was the Club's case in the High Court case that they lost

The club in the slsbn tweet* was Everton not City (as I thought at first)
That and impartiality concerns was the case City lost.
*looks like the tweet has been removed

 

[Pontypool Blue]

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

I did and now it just disappeared?

 

[Pontypool Blue]

I have just see a leaked copy of the "irrefutable evidence" we supplied to the inquiry, i can't think why they say we have not co-operated?

 

[wolviedinho]

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?

Surely it depends on who is viewing the “irrefutable evidence” and how the evidence is interpreted.

Uefa wanted to punish us based on hacked out of context information. City waited and handed over said evidence to CAS. Uefa didn’t want to know anything about the evidence as guilt was already pre determined. Cas did and exonerated the club.

The league like uefa don’t want to believe the evidence and charged us. The independent tribunal will have no choice but to clear with fear the details are released into the public domain and thus confirming and undermining their bias illegal decision.

Facts will prevail. Those who run the league want punishment to fend off the red clubs just as uefa had pressure from Munich, Barca, Madrid.

So having the evidence is great but only in right arena otherwise it will be interpreted in such a way as to suggest guilt.

 

[IT and Me]

I have just see a leaked copy of the "irrefutable evidence" we supplied to the inquiry, i can't think why they say we have not co-operated?

View attachment 114480

Made me laugh, that

 

[Centurions]

What was this?

 

[denislawsbackheel]

Evidence of City’s guilt…

 

[norman]

What was this?

What was this?

Slsbn tweeted saying how we might be dealt with for noncooperation with an extract from the EPL judgement on ”the club” saying far ftom cooperating they were obstructive - in a nutshell. Many, me included, assumed the club was city but….
Slsbn later revealed the club was Everton, and that on appeal the IC rejected the PL assertion of lack of cooperatio/obstruction and stated that on the contrary Everton had fully cooperated.
He caught a few including me, but just shows (imo) why City were right to challenge the PL all the way

 

[Matt Diablo]

I assumed it was us at first doh.
When you read the PL statement about Everton’s non cooperation, and compare the IC statement, you have to wonder what the hell is going on with the PL investigation board.
The nagging worry I’ve had since the 115 was announced is the difficulty in imagining the PL is incompetent and would issue without pretty substantial evidence to justify proceeding, and presumably taking legal advice first.
The more I read about it, and seeing what a farce PSR is becoming, and seeing the utter disdain the IC had for the PL view on non-cooperation, the more I’m inclined to the view that the PL is incompetent.
I re-read the “merits” judgement after City were defeated in the commercial court.
I think that City were trying to block a pure fishing expedition by the PL panel, but could only have the issue independently tested by a tribunal not linked to the PL. City were legitimately concerned about the PL panel being allowed to make sweeping requests for documents without specifying why they required such documents - a fishing expedition. So rather than obstructing or delaying the PL process, City were exercising what legal rights they had to challenge it. Although City lost on that occasion concern was expressed about the length of time of the PL investigation had already taken and no judicial opinion was expressed as to whether City’s application was, in effect, a delaying tactic. So even on the non-cooperation charges, provided City have since cooperated then for City to be punished for non-cooperation would require the I.C. to deem City’s application to the commercial court to have been an unjustified delaying tactic.
I’ve rambled on a bit and all this is my interpretation which may be incorrect and there may be more to it but overall it’s as likely as not the PL hierarchy did not and do not know what they are doing

In a nutshell I wholeheartedly agree

 

[BlueAnorak]

Kind of depends if your asking questions or fishing for evidence - the trick that UEFA kept trying to pull. Ask City a question and we'll give you an answer. We'd be fucking stupid to let them go on a fishing expedition...