PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

While I appreciate the giddiness of the last 50 pages or so can I just raise a small point. While there may be KC's and other legal people involved it remains that this is not a court of law so all this burden of proof talk is surely not relevant to the degree that some seem to be suggesting. It's a supposed independent commission looking to see if we've breached rules set out by the Premier League. Yes, the PL still have to have the evidence to prove their case but surely it's not the same level required on such fraud cases in the courts. I still remember that last supposed independent panel's findings and us being banned from Europe for 2 season's. This time around we don't have recourse to CAS and while I remain optimistic with what the club and other respected members of the Bluemoon community have said with their expectations of the outcome there is still that nagging feeling.
 
JRockBlues said:
While I appreciate the giddiness of the last 50 pages or so can I just raise a small point. While there may be KC's and other legal people involved it remains that this is not a court of law so all this burden of proof talk is surely not relevant to the degree that some seem to be suggesting. It's a supposed independent commission looking to see if we've breached rules set out by the Premier League. Yes, the PL still have to have the evidence to prove their case but surely it's not the same level required on such fraud cases in the courts. I still remember that last supposed independent panel's findings and us being banned from Europe for 2 season's. This time around we don't have recourse to CAS and while I remain optimistic with what the club and other respected members of the Bluemoon community have said with their expectations of the outcome there is still that nagging feeling.
Click to expand...
The balance of probabilities says you may well be right.
 
projectriver said:
You've answered your own questions. The core of the charges are obviously about Etihad, Etisalat etc for the reasons you say re image rights/Toure/Mancini. Thats why the dates in charges 1 are what they are. I've said I don't see how they will be able to prove such charges but those are almost certainly the matters to which they relate.
Click to expand...

If the core charges are about Etihad, then why have they not charged us up until this season for that? We are still using the same sponsor. What has changed in the last 5 years?
 
WRicko said:
First off I don’t think there is a set rule for image rights but there is actually an accepted principle that a player cannot receive more than a certain % of their income from image rights. HMRC would come after the player if he got all his pay via image rights it’s a way of dodging NI. But that was not what I was saying I was meaning in regard to the sale of the image rights not the payment of them to the players
Click to expand...
What rule is in place that restricts the percentage of earnings a player can earn from image rights? Quote me the rule on that, and where, or why, have the image rights been sold?

It's over to you.
 
Stefan trying to explain things to our friend Nick again I see, must be like Groundhog Day for him…

No matter how times he’s told ‘Sportingintel’ just parrots his uninformed nonsense anyway.
 
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