PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Prophet of Doom said:
One thing for certain is 95% is certainly not off the table. City might be happy to out on a fake smile and let that be leaked but 95% not being on the table is nonsense.
Click to expand...
Why is everyone so literal these days? I doubt very much the club think 95% of the alleged breaches are "off the table". Whatever that means. I am sure they are taking them all deadly seriously. But the intent of the message was clearly an indication that the club feels, probably correctly, that most of the alleged breaches will be cleared by additional evidence given to the panel, as they were at CAS.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Why is everyone so literal these days? I doubt very much the club think 95% of the alleged breaches are "off the table". Whatever that means. I am sure they are taking them all deadly seriously. But the intent of the message was clearly an indication that the club feels, probably correctly, that most of the alleged breaches will be cleared by additional evidence given to the panel, as they were at CAS.
Click to expand...
Definitely no expert on these matters but tolmies hairdo did state he has spoken to somebody who has inside Knowledge of what’s going on inside city and said 95% of the charges are off the table. My only niggling doubt is the remaining 5% and what it potential means and is it defensible.
 
Chris in London said:
No, when non-lawyers are on the panel their approach is usually framed by the chair - ie, the "issues we have to decide are A, B, and C" and "the evidence on issue A is as follows..." Their decision is their own based on their own view of the actual evidence.

The burden of proof remains on the Premier League. They have to persuade the panel that it is more likely than not that we are guilty of the breaches alleged. But as we've discussed before, the evidence needed to satisfy the panel that we are guilty of conduct that amounts to serious criminal offences will need to be very cogent indeed.
Click to expand...
Perhaps another point is that the 3 on the CAS panel still managed to make it 2 to 1 in our favor rather than 3 to 0 despite being all legally qualified and presumably been guided by the Chairman.
 
SilverFox2 said:
Perhaps another point is that the 3 on the CAS panel still managed to make it 2 to 1 in our favor rather than 3 to 0 despite being all legally qualified and presumably been guided by the Chairman.
Click to expand...

My impression of that is that it was a face-saving exercise and they did not want to make it seem like a complete humiliation to UEFA.
 
Prophet of Doom said:
One thing for certain is 95% is certainly not off the table. City might be happy to out on a fake smile and let that be leaked but 95% not being on the table is nonsense.
Click to expand...

Completely wrong.

They are insistent 95 per cent of the shit thrown at the wall is in triplicate and the majority of it will be dismissed on the first day.
 
SilverFox2 said:
Perhaps another point is that the 3 on the CAS panel still managed to make it 2 to 1 in our favor rather than 3 to 0 despite being all legally qualified and presumably been guided by the Chairman.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's quite right. There were a series of issues that CAS had to decide, and whilst I don't think they were all 3-0, I don't think they were all 2-1 either. There were certainly areas where the CAS ruling points out that a majority of the panel thought X, Y or Z. However that was not said in relation to every issue. It seems to follow that in other areas the panel was unanimous.

It's some time since I've looked at the ruling in detail, I should add, that's just my recollection.
 
Chris in London said:
I don't think that's quite right. There were a series of issues that CAS had to decide, and whilst I don't think they were all 3-0, I don't think they were all 2-1 either. There were certainly areas where the CAS ruling points out that a majority of the panel thought X, Y or Z. However that was not said in relation to every issue. It seems to follow that in other areas the panel was unanimous.

It's some time since I've looked at the ruling in detail, I should add, that's just my recollection.
Click to expand...
It would be great to get clarification of that.

I’m sick of hearing other fans say that the whole case was 2 1. And that it’s only because we picked 2 of the panel.
 
Prophet of Doom said:
One thing for certain is 95% is certainly not off the table. City might be happy to out on a fake smile and let that be leaked but 95% not being on the table is nonsense.
Click to expand...

Indeed, as is the idea that City intend to ‘finally clear their name’……

If an immaterial punishment were offered in exchange for a guilty finding on all charges, City would snap your cock off for it.
 
terraloon said:
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.
Click to expand...
Just a question about the player's remuneration.
How is their individual sponsorship (e.g. boots) get paid? To them directly or through the club?
 
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