PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[super_city_si]

It is hard to tell with Stuart Attwell who is generally regarded as the worst referee in the PL. But it is bizarre there was been so little comeback on that goal. The usual situation is for VAR to spend minutes going back in a goalscoring move to find someone offisde and interfering with play. Rashford was offside. He shielded the ball from a City defender and blocked off our goalkeeper. It all happened in plain sight.

he is just fucking useless. Remember, this is a man incredibly still in a job as a referee after awarding a goal in 2008 after the ball missed the net!!

Flashback: Stuart Attwell awards Reading a 'ghost goal' - possibly the worse refereeing decision of all time - Dispensable Soccer

Whilst Mike Dean will be desperate to keep a low profile ahead of this week’s Premier League fixtures in the wake of Costa-gate, in reality he can thank his lucky stars his refereeing ineptitude doesn’t even compare to that of Stuart Attwell’s during a Championship fixture in 2008 at Watford...

dispensablesoccer.com

 

[Shads]

I'm 50 pages behind so someone might have answered this.

If not:

The relationship between City and the PL is essentially contractual. The regulations that govern our participation within that league are the terms of the contract. One of those terms is that in the event of an alleged breach of the rules the matter is referred to an independent panel, from which an appeal lies to a further panel.

We are said to be in breach of those terms. The fact that the terms themselves do not contain a limitation clause makes no difference, because the Limitation Act says that if you are alleging a breach of contract you must do it within six years.

So, there is a limitation period, and it is six years.

However.

The limitation act also says that if you are bringing a claim based on the fraud of the other party the limitation period does not start to run until you had knowledge of the fraud. So the six year period begins not with the date of the breaches, but the date those breaches became known to the PL - IF they were breaches brought about by fraud.

This means that the allegation of fraud is relevant in two ways. First, given that our accounts have been passed by an auditor, the PL have to allege fraud in order to make their case stick. Secondly, if they can't establish fraud, the limitation act means anything before February 2017 is time-barred.

They have charged us with something extremely serious. The consequences for City if the case succeeds are potentially devastating. The consequences for the PL if the charges fail is also potentially devastating.

This brings my earlier point back to the forefront. Companies in the UK only need to keep files for 6 years and can start destroying documents after that time. The evidential documentation that the PL seek may well no longer exist outside of public records. They chose to wait so long to bring these charges. Even by 2018 when the investigation began documents surrounding 2012 were being routinely and appropriately destroyed. Some of these charges go back to 2009…

 

[LongsightM13]

To think that got past an editor ?

Or a media lawyer

 

[VOOMER]

CAS also said at 343 that “ The leaded emails comprise of admissible“ evidence.

CAS also state that UEFAs request for a full un redacted run of emails ( which was never supplied) was a reasonable request

You have and email that says
"I'm just going to the bank, then I'll see you in the lockup"

So are they going to rob the bank and then go to the lock up and lay low and split up the cash?

Or

Going to the bank to get some cash and go to "The Lock Up" a restaurant https://www.thelockupbristol.com/ ?

 

[Shads]

Slander! Or is it libel?

Printed… so libel…

unless of course it’s true…

 

[LongsightM13]

I know they’re not evidence of wrong doing, but they’re far from stupid gossip either. They are evidence of very specific discussions that took place about the routing of monies through our club, and we are under serious investigation (again) pretty much solely because of them. What burden of proof is the PL hearing likely to operate to? The same as CAS or less? [genuine question]

Just because you have a conversation about the idea of possibly doing something, that is not proof that you subsequently went on to do it
And that’s all the emails ever were. There was zero evidence any of these ideas were ever acted on.

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

There's no smoking gun.
There's thepPL throwing a much shit at us so that something sticks.

We get a fine, they get to keep us down. They don't like noisy neighbour's and never will allow it.

After this it will be something else.

 

[CJH]

Just because you have a conversation about the idea of possibly doing something, that is not proof that you subsequently went on to do it
And that’s all the emails ever were. There was zero evidence any of these ideas were ever acted on.

Indeed, the reply to the email could have said 'fuck off, we cant do that, go and think of something else'

 

[Bluesince1979]

Bayern is far from “Dominating“ right now. They have a monstrous lead of 1 point.

Bayern absolutely dominate the german league. If they dont win it this year they still totally doninate
As do serial cheats juve. They wont win serie A this season but a look back see’s how theyve dominated
Same with psg and real/barca elsewhere.

the prem just want liv/utd/arse to share it here

 

[nmc]

It went ballistic some time ago. Could be the longest ever.

No. Isco hasn’t signed for us yet…..