PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Gordyola said:
City refused to cooperate with the UEFA investigator as they accused him of leaking information, they went to CAS to ask that due to UEFA breaking their confidentiality rules the investigation should end, the case failed but the view was that they had gone to CAS expecting to loose knowing it would highlight the leaking for the big CAS case
The fine for non-cooperation that UEFA levied was £50M but CAS reduced it to 10 as they accepted City's reluctance to cooperate but since City had admitted to it they had no option to fine them guilty but considerably reduce the fine
Click to expand...
OK, so have they refused to cooperate with the PL investigation for a similar reason?
 
Blueboy73 said:
Any trial/process under Civil Law is based on the principles equity and natural justice and there are 5 pillars of natural justice.
The 5 pillars of natural justice basically your rights, are; Notification (of charges), Preparation (time to prepare), Representation (in this case Lord Pannick KC), Presentation (present your case) and Appeal (if unhappy with the outcome).
You would have to notify someone in advance of the charges - ergo you couldn't turn up on the day with fresh charges.
Click to expand...

Thanks for this. However, with regards to pillar 1 it seems concerning that, if I'm reading it right, they can leave the charge so broad right up until the point of hearing? IE they could pull out 'leaked emails' or a witness which we don't know at this point exists or they're in receipt of. Wouldn't that leave us exposed with regards to the second pillar you've mentioned (preparation).

Apologies if what I'm asking doesn't make the sense I think it does, trying to word it the best way I can.
 
solley attwell said:
Its intresting that he says if City are found guilty clubs may decide to sue because they missed out on European competition.
Surely if that happens then the dippers should be sued by all clubs that missed out on European qualification during the ban in the 80s
Click to expand...
Yep. It’s a shame they’re untouchable.
 
ayrshire_blue said:
Thanks for this. However, with regards to pillar 1 it seems concerning that, if I'm reading it right, they can leave the charge so broad right up until the point of hearing? IE they could pull out 'leaked emails' or a witness which we don't know at this point exists or they're in receipt of. Wouldn't that leave us exposed with regards to the second pillar you've mentioned (preparation).

Apologies if what I'm asking doesn't make the sense I think it does, trying to word it the best way I can.
Click to expand...

There is no way anyone can prepare a defence based on the statement issued by the PL. So I am guessing the club has known the detail of the charges for a while already. Their surprise at the statement was at timing, I would imagine, not content.
 
Bellamy's Caddy said:
When Carragher is giving Richards a tough time on this, Richards needs to turn it round on Carragher and ask him how ashamed he was of Liverpool for what they did with City's scouting database. That happened and is proven. The media brushed it under the carpet, but we don't have to. I like Micah but I doubt he'd rock the boat by doing it, which is a shame as his colleagues are shameless.
Click to expand...
Both on the the field and off it Micah is a pussycat albeit a likable one.
 
Keeper! said:
I total agree and it would be incredibly unlikely but at the same time the PL are risking a hell of a lot on what?

Something the club are not aware of?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure that the PL are risking as much as some people think with this action. It has the feel of a "free hit" for them, just as it did when UEFA tried to do us. If they're being pushed into it by certain clubs and they have a flimsy case that collapses, they can just say to those clubs that at least they tried to get us done, and that may appease those clubs enough to stop them reviving the Super League idea. As for the notion that we might go after them if we come out on top, well I'm not sure we'd want to do that. The domestic league is our bread and butter and we can ill afford to destroy it. If we win, we'd be better advised trying to effect change from within.

I actually think we've got more to lose which might sound daft as I don't believe we're guilty of any of the main charges.
 
M18CTID said:
I'm not sure that the PL are risking as much as some people think with this action. It has the feel of a "free hit" for them, just as it did when UEFA tried to do us. If they're being pushed into it by certain clubs and they have a flimsy case that collapses, they can just say to those clubs that at least they tried to get us done, and that may appease those clubs enough to stop them reviving the Super League idea. As for the notion that we might go after them if we come out on top, well I'm not sure we'd want to do that. The domestic league is our bread and butter and we can ill afford to destroy it. If we win, we'd be better advised trying to effect change from within.

I actually think we've got more to lose which might sound daft as I don't believe we're guilty of any of the main charges.
Click to expand...
I disagree. I would say that calling a very proud member of the Abu Dhabi royal family a crook is a very dangerous and stupid thing to do. I expect some repercussions.
 
moomba said:
Has this been posted yet?

Thought it was really good summary

Click to expand...


If you haven't watched and you're concerned then I highly recommend that you do.

Everytime one of the usual suspects says we're going to be relegated and/or players will leave and we won't be able to attract players - watch it.

The standard of proof is really high and I don't think a 3 man panel can confidently conclude that City cooked the books for 9 years and multiple accounting companies and auditors failed to spot it. It's a ludicrous charge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top