PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

foggy1974 said:
Think he meant us fans
Click to expand...
Ahh right. I read it wrong, apologies to @tolmies hairdo.
I don't want any medicine. I want blood. I want to see some people/clubs swinging from the roof of the stadium. Perhaps have their heads in place of those never replaced blue lights, they used to shine out like a beacon of hope.
 
Bez said:
️ Former UEFA investigator Yves Leterme: “We had hard evidence against City. I'm convinced they committed fraud. Sponsor money was paid by the owner. They used an army of lawyers to obstruct us. The current PL investigation is broader than ours was.”

(Source: Mirror) https://t.co/L7Upy3s2NO
Click to expand...
What hard evidence is this Yves? Oh that’s right emails spliced up and put back together to claim guilt. If Uefa’s case was so strong then why was it laughed out of CAS?

Come on mouthpiece, tell us all what proof you had? Joker
 
Chris in London said:
I'm 20 pages behind so someone else may have answered this already.

The answer is Yes, the issue will be decided on the balance of probabilities, just as the CAS case was.

However.

There is a basic principle that while the standard of proof does not change, the cogency of the evidence necessary to establish that augments according to the seriousness of the allegations. Take an allegation that the local authority makes against a parent it claims has physically abused a child. It is inherently less probable that a parent has deliberately broken a bone than it is that they have slapped a child. So while the standard of proof is the same either way, the quality of the evidence you need to show, on the balance of probability, that the parent broke the child’s bone deliberately is significantly higher than the quality of the evidence you need to show that the child was slapped.

Likewise in this case. What is alleged is there has been a serious, co-ordinated and sustained attempt to defraud our auditors, the premier league, UEFA and others over a period of a decade. Those are very serious allegations, and so the evidence needed to make them out has a different quality to the evidence needed to make out a much less serious accusation. So the evidence needed to establish, even on the balance of probabilities, very serious allegations must be very cogent otherwise the panel can’t be satisfied, even to that standard, simply because the allegations are so serious.

The accusations made against the club are very, very serious.

That being the case, the question the panel will ask itself is this: does the evidence satisfy us, on the balance of probabilities, that the particular charge brought by the Premier League is true? If the evidence lacks the cogency necessary to show we have committed serious breaches of not just PL rules but (as Petrusha has convincingly demonstrated) English criminal law then the charges will fail.

Which is precisely what I expect to happen.
Click to expand...
What he said.
 
flb said:
Why shouldn’t we go for damages mate , they’ve fucked our image, and that Pep couldn’t do it without fiddling , I disagree tbh , always an out of court settlement.
Click to expand...

There is nothing that PL is doing that is against their rules.

There is no avenue to suing them over this after we win.

Some City fans need to understand this that we won't be 'going after' the PL, just like we didnt go after UEFA.
 
argyle said:
There is nothing that PL is doing that is against their rules.

There is no avenue to suing them over this after we win.

Some City fans need to understand this that we won't be 'going after' the PL, just like we didnt go after UEFA.
Click to expand...
Some of the cartel clubs will have a new boss though, can't bully the government team they instruct to run our game. It'll certainly be the end of their bullshit threats and other teams will feel able to not suck their cocks.
 
flb said:
Hand on heart mate , how confident are you of us winning this TOTALLY ?
Click to expand...

Not as confident as at CAS. I was pretty certain we would win that one.

I'm about 65/35 on this one, simply because I fail to see how the reporting of it doesn't prejudice the panel, no matter how learned or esteemed it will be.

Can only take City at their word they are pretty confident we will win again, but I don't see a home run and envisage a big fine again for non cooperation and maybe a transfer ban over a couple of windows just to limit our progression over the image rights set-up.

I trust Lord Pannick to make the difference.
 
Withnail said:
Whatever the outcome, rival fans will always consider City as cheats and in their eyes there will be permanent asterisks against the trophies we have won. I would prefer this not to be the case but as you say TH the most important thing to come out of this is that City win this case. Unfortunately, our reputation is tarnished forever in most of the media and rivals fans eyes.
Click to expand...

Not forever. The cheat jibes will go in a few years when we're cleared.

We used to hear that our owner will "get bored and leave." Remember that one? You don't hear that one much anymore.

They'll find something else to have a go at us about once all of this over.
 
tolmie's hairdoo said:
Not as confident as at CAS. I was pretty certain we would win that one.

I'm about 65/35 on this one, simply because I fail to see how the reporting of it doesn't prejudice the panel, no matter how learned or esteemed it will be.

Can only take City at their word they are pretty confident we will win again, but I don't see a home run and envisage a big fine again for non cooperation and maybe a transfer ban over a couple of windows just to limit our progression over the image rights set-up.

I trust Lord Pannick to make the difference.
Click to expand...
We best sign Bellingham, Gvardiol, de Jong, Leao and a quality left back in the summer then.
 
tolmie's hairdoo said:
Not as confident as at CAS. I was pretty certain we would win that one.

I'm about 65/35 on this one, simply because I fail to see how the reporting of it doesn't prejudice the panel, no matter how learned or esteemed it will be.

Can only take City at their word they are pretty confident we will win again, but I don't see a home run and envisage a big fine again for non cooperation and maybe a transfer ban over a couple of windows just to limit our progression over the image rights set-up.

I trust Lord Pannick to make the difference.
Click to expand...
Wow
 
Woody135 said:
If someone asked Neville where the Salford City commercial revenue ranked in League 2 against more established clubs I’d love to see how he can explain why without contradicting himself.

Commercial revenue is a result of 1) brand awareness 2) immediate visibility and 3) potential growth of both.

1) Theres not a football fan globally that is aware of united but not aware of city. EQUAL
2) City are more immediately visible than united because they have better players, play more important games and win more. CITY
3) City are growing faster than United, reaching an increasing number of people for the first time and CFG is important to that. CITY

Then you get into the unfair reasons. 4) Business is all about who you know and taking advantage of those relationships for mutual benefit and 5) Not everyone is equal at selling their own brand.

4) City is a tiny part of a massive investment strategy. Our owner and chairman are some of the most well connected people globally. They have more weight in a boardroom than a glazer does. No one outside the US has a clue or cares who he is.
Why were salford sponsored by sky sports in their early years. Why is Wrexham sponsored by TikTok. Because their owners knew people and got good business for their clubs. City is no different. CITY
5) Our Chairman is the CEO of an investment company managing $284bn in assets globally. Ed woowar who was CEO at united 2013-2021 was an accountant and investment banker that hadnt worked outside United since 2005. Who of those is more likely to have better skills or experience. CITY

There are so many logical reasons our commercial revenue is higher.
Click to expand...


It’s been embarrassing to see Neville & his cronies mocking that with no evidence apart from “we’re man utd” & the reason their arragonce has left them trailing.
 
Bez said:
️ Former UEFA investigator Yves Leterme: “We had hard evidence against City. I'm convinced they committed fraud. Sponsor money was paid by the owner. They used an army of lawyers to obstruct us. The current PL investigation is broader than ours was.”

(Source: Mirror) https://t.co/L7Upy3s2NO
Click to expand...
After what that corrupt twat did in the PSG FFP case, he should keep his mouth shut!
 
blue whippet said:
Taking a gulp of some form of medicine doesn't to me sound particularly confident.
Click to expand...
Think it insinuates that for the PL to save face, we will have to accept a small fine - perhaps for a small charge, even the withholding evidence bollocks again...

...However, I sincerly hope we don't and nail the bastards ondthis one... I want nothin less than to be fully exonerated and compensated!
 
tolmie's hairdoo said:
Not as confident as at CAS. I was pretty certain we would win that one.

I'm about 65/35 on this one, simply because I fail to see how the reporting of it doesn't prejudice the panel, no matter how learned or esteemed it will be.

Can only take City at their word they are pretty confident we will win again, but I don't see a home run and envisage a big fine again for non cooperation and maybe a transfer ban over a couple of windows just to limit our progression over the image rights set-up.

I trust Lord Pannick to make the difference.
Click to expand...
Personally I think the non co-operation is a major issue and had UEFA kept on requesting information or challenging the lack of fullness CAS would , as they suggest in their ruling, viewed the failure to fully disclose in a far different way.
 
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