PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

paska said:
Not their fault if they get hacked though, is it?

Obviously you have to protect yourself against hackers as part of that GDPR duty of care, but nobody is immune to hacking, no person or organisation, and I’m sure the standard procedures have been taken to not “invite it” upon ourselves, such as it’s being framed as
Click to expand...
He/she wasn't hacked as far as I'm aware. The three employees who had already left, knew their log in details, either through familiarity with the remaining person or they were given them at one time for whatever reason. It did cross my mind that he/she was left in place on purpose as an undercover spy, but I suspect that the club would have pressed for a prosecution if they had any inkling of that.
 
The judicial panel is appointed as per the attachments as per rules W.20, W.21 and W.26.

The appointed panel members have to sign an impartiality agreement and I believe as the Respondent to the charges we have 48 hours to raise any objections to the proposed panel members.

Assuming the appointed panel members abide by the impartiality conditions then this should not be an issue.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20230309-142806_Drive.jpg
    Screenshot_20230309-142806_Drive.jpg
    49.6 KB · Views: 84
  • Screenshot_20230309-142734_Drive.jpg
    Screenshot_20230309-142734_Drive.jpg
    52.5 KB · Views: 84
tolmie's hairdoo said:
How can it be that only one person on the panel needs a legal qualification?

Especially so, when the panel is being picked on behalf of the Premier League.

That certainly stinks.
Click to expand...
The rule is that one person MUST have a legal qualification. All three could if necessary but I'd expect at least one person with a finance background.
 
Blue_Lightsaber said:
I hope Khaldoon and company have the ability to appeal this to a higher court because even though we have faith in them, we can't find ourselves at the mercy of a kangaroo court panel.

If we do, I expect it to go the way that blatant offside vs the Rags did!

That's the only thing that's worried me from the start.. if we get a fair hearing we're fine, but if we get a kangaroo court..
Click to expand...

I think that's everyone's concern mate. I keep reading that because the charges are so serious, a higher burden of proof will be required if the PL wishes to find us guilty. Why and says who? Given that our only comeback is for the case to be referred to another PL appeal panel, what's to prevent them 'interpreting' the evidence any which way they want? I really get the whiff of a show trial about all of this, with the pretence of fairness but ultimately resulting in a 'guilty' verdict. Apart from the obvious product damage involved in City potentially having umpteen trophies rescinded, I cannot see that it would be any great hardship for the PL to nobble us. The rag top media has already conditioned everyone as to our guilt, and an opportunity for the PL to play the role of Rooster Cogburn, delivering 'justice' against the odds, on behalf of the needy and the eternally grateful, would probably be universally well received.
Genuine question though? What would be our recourse, were the panel to effectively accuse us of wanton criminality, based on nebulous evidence?
 
Bez said:
The judicial panel is appointed as per the attachments as per rules W.20, W.21 and W.26.

The appointed panel members have to sign an impartiality agreement and I believe as the Respondent to the charges we have 48 hours to raise any objections to the proposed panel members.

Assuming the appointed panel members abide by the impartiality conditions then this should not be an issue.
Click to expand...

And what if the Premier League object to the panel members!
 
I haven’t seen anything that encourages me to believe that this will be dealt with fairly. I think it will be a huge miscarriage of justice that will be brushed under the carpet by the media because they WANT us to be found guilty. There are too many things against us: the cartel clubs; the hatred of our success; the makeup of the panel; the fact we’re affecting the profitability of the so-called big clubs & the agenda to address our UEFA successful result.
If it was a truly impartial panel, I’d feel confident but to spend 4 years investigating us - to the detriment of regulating truly failing clubs - there’s no way they intend to lose

Our only hope is if we can go to the high courts but I don’t think we can
 
CC1 said:
Our only hope is if we can go to the high courts but I don’t think we can
Click to expand...

Maybe do it pre-emptively to set the rules.. that this can't be a trial with no means of appeal as that is against "laws of natural justice" - the law of the land and that supercedes everything that PL says or does since it has to adhere to the law of the land!
 
CC1 said:
I haven’t seen anything that encourages me to believe that this will be dealt with fairly. I think it will be a huge miscarriage of justice that will be brushed under the carpet by the media because they WANT us to be found guilty. There are too many things against us: the cartel clubs; the hatred of our success; the makeup of the panel; the fact we’re affecting the profitability of the so-called big clubs & the agenda to address our UEFA successful result.
If it was a truly impartial panel, I’d feel confident but to spend 4 years investigating us - to the detriment of regulating truly failing clubs - there’s no way they intend to lose

Our only hope is if we can go to the high courts but I don’t think we can
Click to expand...
The guy in charge of the panel is a KC and leading sports lawyer.

He isn't going to jeopardise his career by overseeing a kangaroo court/ trial by media.
 
Bluewonder said:
The guy in charge of the panel is a KC and leading sports lawyer.

He isn't going to jeopardise his career by overseeing a kangaroo court/ trial by media.
Click to expand...
Hope so. Guess we’d do our best to ruin him IF he wasn’t impartial
 
This whole thing stinks and have no faith in us recieving a fair hearing. That said no matter what the outcome i will still be there cheering us on each week, in truth a small part of me would love to go back to the dark old days just so I could go to York away.
 
ayrshire_blue said:
Correct me if I'm wrong though isn't the main charge we're facing namely that we deliberately mislead the PL over finances for a 9 year period? As I understand it, none of what you're commenting on suggests that they have deliberately mislead anyone, given the image rights company was literally changed to Manchester City football club (image rights) ltd. It suggests it's being plainly open rather than deliberately misleading surely?

Apologies if I've picked you up wrong. I appreciate your part in this discussion with PB.
Click to expand...
If and a big if the company controlling was in the Man City group I would think that then would create even more questions concerning the sum paid for the image rights.

I haven’t got a view to be honest re the sponsorship as much as anything I don’t think the full details were ever covered by UEFA or even in the CAS ruling so without having sight of the full run of emails or indeed other documents that UEFA didn’t go after CAS stated they couldn’t form a view on certain areas and I too don’t know but you can be certain they the PL will have taken heed of CASs comments

The image rights issue is different for me because , and as I have pointed out before, players wages in England and how they are paid and by whom is under the FA/PLs remit . No part of a players remuneration can be paid by any other entity.

As for the managers payment the question will be simply this. On the balance is it feasible that a manager will be paid less for managing the lead club in the group than he receives for doing a small amount of work for a minor club. If they think that’s unlikely then the next question is why was it done
 
Last edited:
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