PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[halfcenturyup]

Consider the following:

1. MCFC insists that it has provided the PL with "extensive engagement and [a] vast amount of detailed materials". It further claims that there's a "comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence ... in support of [the club's] position".
2. One would assume that the PL wouldn't bring charges of this seriousness and in this volume without being confident that it has significant evidence that offers a realistic chance of the charges being proved to the necessary standard.

The first of those is an accurate quotation setting out MCFC's position. The second is an assumption as to the PL's position, but, I'd suggest, a perfectly reasonable one.

The thing is that points 1 and 2 above are mutually exclusive.

What about this for a possible hypothesis? The High Court case showed that the PL wanted a load of internal documents, and for the club to contact third parties for their evidence. Now, the PL can't force third parties to provide and can't expect the club to get third parties to provide.

What if the club has provided all the internal documentation required by the PL but wasn't able to get third party permission for their evidence to be used at the PL investigation. Most of the club's defence I would imagine will be based on third party documents and statements, like at CAS.

The PL would know what third party evidence was presented at CAS. Would a reluctance to present this evidence at the PL investigation, rather waiting for the independent panel, be cause for a breach on non-cooperation grounds?

Just trying to square your circle.

Basically, the club forcing the PL to make charges so they can be cleared at an independent panel. Kind of ties into the club's statement on page 108 (I don't even need to look that up I have seen it so often :)).

 

[terraloon]

All the way through the CAS case people stressed that UEFA would not have sanctioned City unless they had a smoking gun. In fact they had virtually no evidence at all and that was made clear by the CAS statement. The case was a politically-motivated farce. What makes you think the PL would behave differently to UEFA? Do you really think Richard Masters is a man of integrity?

That’s a fair point but UEFA at both stages ( hearing and appeal ) ruled they did indeed have a smoking gun it was only when it went to CAS did they deliver the final outcome.
In the PL process there isn’t CAS asa long stop

We have no idea how the panel will view the evidence UEFA ruled that the evidence had reached “ comfortable “ whereas CAS said UEFA had got it wrong.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

True...But...

City know the truth, you shouldn't underestimate that. If this is all a crock and City know it, it's immaterial what "evidence" the PL has, because the club knows it's all politically motivated nonsense. Soriano knows the PL does not have a smoking gun, and how does he know this? Because no gun exists! If there was we wouldn't be contesting these charges we'd be plea bargaining.



City's reference to reputational damage was made when UEFA started their merry go round, when the PL charges landed City issued this....

"Manchester City Football Club is surprised by the issuing of these alleged breaches of the Premier League rules, particularly given the extensive engagement and vast amount of detailed materials that the EPL has been provided with. The club welcomes the review of this matter by an independent Commission, to impartially consider the comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence that exists in support of its position.

"As such we look forward to this matter being put to rest once and for all."

The key word here is "impartially" meaning?....Free from political interference.

Soriano has being doing the rounds telling everyone it's all bullshit, of course he would, wouldn't he? Not necessarily, crisis management is more subtle than that. Soriano is so bullish because whatever the PL has he knows it's not the "evidence", and why is he so confident? Because he knows there's no evidence to be had, and how does he know that? Because there is no crime.

I repeat, we wouldn't be here now if the PL had its evidence, there would be no independent panel, we'd be licking our wounds after a good kicking.




Precedent is no guide here. A four year investigation and yet it has to go to an independent panel! An independent panel after four years! I repeat four years! All those years and Soriano isn't doing a perp walk! And let's not forget the timing of the charges, conveniently released just ahead of the white paper on the independent regulator. Nor should we forget that rushed incomprehensible charge sheet, issued with no pre-warning for City. A charge sheet, consisting of little more than a confusing bunch of references, that had to be amended the afternoon of the morning it was issued! Then amended again two days later, and why did it look so rushed? After four years of painstaking meticulous investigation? It looked rushed because it was rushed, and why was it rushed?.....Political expediency.

This has all the hallmarks of an organisation buckling under pressure from big beast bullies. If the PL has what you're suggesting they have, irrefutable dirt on the PL champions no less! Then you wouldn't have this dogs dinner, not this high profile, not after four years.

This investigation had been buried by the PL, it stinks coz it's rotten, dug up in a hurry by the PL under instruction from Yanky owners and Blofeld of Haringey, there's no other plausible explanation.

Superb post.

 

[BringBackSwales]

I'm constantly amazed at the number of people who don't believe that the media indulges in systematic bias against certain clubs, when they absolutely do. I'm similarly amazed by those people who will acknowledge the possibility of political bias on the front pages of particular newspapers, but deny the same possibility when it comes to the back pages.
Just taking the Mail as an example, every article comes with a comments section. The paper's aim is to ensure that as many people as possible click on those articles, in order that they might maximise the advertising revenue central to their continued existence. It does this on the front pages by appealing to its largest readership demographic. Endless negative stories about lefties, teachers, lazy public servants, Meghan Markle, soft judges, asylum seekers, the cancel culture, 'militant' unions, remoaners, Gary Lineker etc etc are always the order of the day, because the Mail knows its foam flecked gammon army will hammer away with such fury that their keyboards will catch fire.
As to the back pages then, which two clubs have far and away the biggest fan bases in this country? And which club do you think is an oven ready enemy for both, having deprived them of hundreds of millions in prize money and trophies since 2011? Once you've joined the dots by answering those two questions, the penny should drop. City have been portrayed as football ruining, cheating, nouveau riche, sportswashing, plastic, no European pedigree, obscene spending (complete with squad cost comparisons, once famously when we weren't even one of the teams playing), human rights abusing, dodgy Arab owned, corrupt, 'dirty' oil money funded, success buying filth, non-stop for 15 years now, and our 'guilt' as regards the current PL investigation has long since been declared as fact.
Other papers, most notably the Guardian, have clear editorial policies when it comes to City and I defy you to find a single article from Miguel Delaney, Barney Ronay, Jonathan Liew etc that doesn't contain the phrases "state owned project", "oil funded" or "sportswashing". I've seen other journalists call our fans 'grubby apologists' and 'filthy rats', I've seen domestic broadcasters stuff their panels with rag pundits for our European games and listened to them call us mercenaries and wait until the half time interval to pan the camera around the crowd and sneer at us for having empty seats, and I've turned on the radio and heard us called "disgusting" and a "Frankenstein club". It's been relentless and no other club has ever had to put up with an onslaught of even remotely comparable degree. It doesn't mean that all journalists and broadcasters are out to get us, but compared to our immediate rivals we're a country mile ahead in the vilification stakes

Well fucking said

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

That’s a fair point but UEFA at both stages ( hearing and appeal ) ruled they did indeed have a smoking gun it was only when it went to CAS did they deliver the final outcome.
In the PL process there isn’t CAS asa long stop

We have no idea how the panel will view the evidence UEFA ruled that the evidence had reached “ comfortable “ whereas CAS said UEFA had got it wrong.

You really have no idea about the UEFA investigation. I know for certain that the process was corrupted. You have not even read the CAS documents.

 

[kaz7]

You really have no idea about the UEFA investigation. I know for certain that the process was corrupted. You have not even read the CAS documents.

He has an agenda that one

 

[terraloon]

No one has suggested the panel won't hear the evidence. The point that is being made is that for the alleged breaches outside the 6 year limit what the evidence has to establish for the PL to succeed is different because of the time bar. That applies to virtually all of the charges but there are a few that are not time barred (the very latest ones) so the test in relation to those is slightly different.

This is what I have said to you previously, so you don't have to look for it again.

"1. The arrangements between MCFC and the PL are essentially contractual, and subject to English law.

2. Unlike the UEFA rules, the PL rules do not include any limitation period. However, because the arrangements are subject to English law, the general limitation period of 6 years applies. See point 1.

3. The limitation period is however suspended in a case (I paraphrase in the interests of brevity) where fraud is alleged until the fraud comes to light. It is at that point that the 6 year period begins to run.

4. What this means is that if the PL can establish fraud, the 6 year period will not apply until the fraud came to light, which was the publication of the Der Spiegel articles in 2018.

5. To get over that hurdle, however, the PL needs to adduce very cogent evidence. And if they cannot, the ordinary 6 year rule will apply. See point 2.

6. For that reason, the charge of fraud is central to the case for two reasons: (a) because that is precisely what the PL is alleging, and (2) because if they cannot establish fraud, the complaints that pre-date 2017 (ie six years before the complaint was made) are time-barred."

Do you follow now? In relation to the charges concerning matters that are more than 6 years old, the evidence has to establish one of the three exceptions to the general 6 year rule - fraud, mistake or concealment. Nobody has suggested mistake (and the concept of mistake in law can be very different to what a layman might think of as a mistake). The issues are fraud and concealment, which in the circumstances of this case are the same thing. The PL has got to prove a deliberate intention on MCFC to withhold the truth when presenting their accounts. If if does not, the claims that relate to the period before 2017 will be statute barred.

A claim that an allegation that a claim is statute barred doesn't mean that the court won't hear the evidence, unless there is no possibility that one of the three exceptions applies. It just amounts to a complete defence to any claim that might be made, unless, as I say, one of the exceptions applies.

And that is why I say it’s a red herring because the evidence will be heard and the commission, to whatever standard will have to measured against the three exceptions

 

[terraloon]

You really have no idea about the UEFA investigation. I know for certain that the process was corrupted. You have not even read the CAS documents.

I really have several times

 

[terraloon]

As I understand it, P7.1 requires a manager contract to contain all his remuneration and bik. I take this to mean between the club and the manager. I am not sure it refers to "through the payroll"? P7.2 requires disclosure to the PL of any other income earned by the manager from "other persons". So between P7.1 and P7.2 they should get visibility on all the manager's income from wherever it comes. There is no requirement as far as I can see for all the manager's income to be in the signed, audited annual accounts. In fact, that wouldn't make any sense.

As far as I can see their isn’t any suggestion that Man City didn’t comply with P7.2 what the charge as far as I can see it is that the second contract wasn’t in reality a contract with an independent third party but that the income actually formed part of his income from Man City

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

No one has suggested the panel won't hear the evidence. The point that is being made is that for the alleged breaches outside the 6 year limit what the evidence has to establish for the PL to succeed is different because of the time bar. That applies to virtually all of the charges but there are a few that are not time barred (the very latest ones) so the test in relation to those is slightly different.

This is what I have said to you previously, so you don't have to look for it again.

"1. The arrangements between MCFC and the PL are essentially contractual, and subject to English law.

2. Unlike the UEFA rules, the PL rules do not include any limitation period. However, because the arrangements are subject to English law, the general limitation period of 6 years applies. See point 1.

3. The limitation period is however suspended in a case (I paraphrase in the interests of brevity) where fraud is alleged until the fraud comes to light. It is at that point that the 6 year period begins to run.

4. What this means is that if the PL can establish fraud, the 6 year period will not apply until the fraud came to light, which was the publication of the Der Spiegel articles in 2018.

5. To get over that hurdle, however, the PL needs to adduce very cogent evidence. And if they cannot, the ordinary 6 year rule will apply. See point 2.

6. For that reason, the charge of fraud is central to the case for two reasons: (a) because that is precisely what the PL is alleging, and (2) because if they cannot establish fraud, the complaints that pre-date 2017 (ie six years before the complaint was made) are time-barred."

Do you follow now? In relation to the charges concerning matters that are more than 6 years old, the evidence has to establish one of the three exceptions to the general 6 year rule - fraud, mistake or concealment. Nobody has suggested mistake (and the concept of mistake in law can be very different to what a layman might think of as a mistake). The issues are fraud and concealment, which in the circumstances of this case are the same thing. The PL has got to prove a deliberate intention on MCFC to withhold the truth when presenting their accounts. If if does not, the claims that relate to the period before 2017 will be statute barred.

A claim that an allegation that a claim is statute barred doesn't mean that the court won't hear the evidence, unless there is no possibility that one of the three exceptions applies. It just amounts to a complete defence to any claim that might be made, unless, as I say, one of the exceptions applies.

This is something I've never seen properly qualified Chris, so I'm hoping you can oblige. Who says the PL Panel will need to adduce very cogent evidence? Who says the burden of proof will be elevated? Aren't maxims of that ilk only applicable to the Courts? Our case isn't being heard in a Court, so what's to stop the Panel applying as subjective an interpretation of the evidence as they see fit? Who's going to censor them if they extract the urine by coming up with a guilty verdict even when the evidence doesn't really merit one, when all we have recourse to is more of the same, ie another PL panel.......

 

[slbsn]

This is something I've never seen properly qualified Chris, so I'm hoping you can oblige. Who says the PL Panel will need to adduce very cogent evidence? Who says the burden of proof will be elevated? Aren't maxims of that ilk only applicable to the Courts? Our case isn't being heard in a Court, so what's to stop the Panel applying as subjective an interpretation of the evidence as they see fit? Who's going to censor them if they extract the urine by coming up with a guilty verdict even when the evidence doesn't really merit one, when all we have recourse to is more of the same, ie another PL panel.......

All the PL rules are under English law so the same principles *should* apply here as they would in a court on matters of this type. Either way there is bound to be a subjective element as there would be in court. All litigation has a high level of risk.

Ultimately, the appeal process is limited as discussed previously.

 

[slbsn]

That’s a fair point but UEFA at both stages ( hearing and appeal ) ruled they did indeed have a smoking gun it was only when it went to CAS did they deliver the final outcome.
In the PL process there isn’t CAS asa long stop

We have no idea how the panel will view the evidence UEFA ruled that the evidence had reached “ comfortable “ whereas CAS said UEFA had got it wrong.

I've not replied to you previously because I really don't think this is a place for a Chelsea fan (even one that may or may not have an understanding). But the above is not correct. So for the benefit of City fans...

First, there is no such thing as a smoking gun in a complex case of this type. UEFA overreached on its finding based on 7 emails and non-cooperation inferences when set against the standard of proof, the audited accounts and having to make good a multi-party conspiracy. CAS would always have found it very hard to establish the case against City unless it concluded its witnesses were liars. The 7 emails were never going to suffice.

The PL will have more documents, that is already clear. So again it won't be a case of a smoking gun - it will be about the evidence as a whole, witnesses, experts and, for the PL, somehow overcoming the reluctance of any hearing to find that people are liars/dishonest and worse. If it was just the same emails, I'd suggest we'd know with some confidence how the panel would look at them - exactly the same way as CAS. But it won't be.

 

[halfcenturyup]

And that is why I say it’s a red herring because the evidence will be heard and the commission, to whatever standard will have to measured against the three exceptions

Confused by your point.

It is the breach that is time-barred, not the giving of evidence, isn't it?. So, if the panel doesn't find one of your three exceptions in the alleged breach, there can be no punishment for any breach if it occurred more than six years ago.

That's the situation, isn't it?

 

[pauls]

I'm constantly amazed at the number of people who don't believe that the media indulges in systematic bias against certain clubs, when they absolutely do. I'm similarly amazed by those people who will acknowledge the possibility of political bias on the front pages of particular newspapers, but deny the same possibility when it comes to the back pages.
Just taking the Mail as an example, every article comes with a comments section. The paper's aim is to ensure that as many people as possible click on those articles, in order that they might maximise the advertising revenue central to their continued existence. It does this on the front pages by appealing to its largest readership demographic. Endless negative stories about lefties, teachers, lazy public servants, Meghan Markle, soft judges, asylum seekers, the cancel culture, 'militant' unions, remoaners, Gary Lineker etc etc are always the order of the day, because the Mail knows its foam flecked gammon army will hammer away with such fury that their keyboards will catch fire.
As to the back pages then, which two clubs have far and away the biggest fan bases in this country? And which club do you think is an oven ready enemy for both, having deprived them of hundreds of millions in prize money and trophies since 2011? Once you've joined the dots by answering those two questions, the penny should drop. City have been portrayed as football ruining, cheating, nouveau riche, sportswashing, plastic, no European pedigree, obscene spending (complete with squad cost comparisons, once famously when we weren't even one of the teams playing), human rights abusing, dodgy Arab owned, corrupt, 'dirty' oil money funded, success buying filth, non-stop for 15 years now, and our 'guilt' as regards the current PL investigation has long since been declared as fact.
Other papers, most notably the Guardian, have clear editorial policies when it comes to City and I defy you to find a single article from Miguel Delaney, Barney Ronay, Jonathan Liew etc that doesn't contain at least one of the phrases "state owned project", "oil funded" or "sportswashing". I've seen other journalists call our fans 'grubby apologists' and 'filthy rats', I've seen domestic broadcasters stuff their panels with rag pundits for our European games and listened to them call us mercenaries and wait until the half time interval to pan the camera around the crowd and sneer at us for having empty seats, and I've turned on the radio and heard us called "disgusting" and a "Frankenstein club". It's been relentless and no other club has ever had to put up with an onslaught of even remotely comparable degree. It doesn't mean that all journalists and broadcasters are out to get us, but compared to our immediate rivals we're a country mile ahead in the vilification stakes

Excellent post and unfortunately very true.I don't know what we could have done to stop this tsunami but once this is over we need to put an end to it, makes my fuckin blood boil!

 

[oakiecokie]

True...But...

City know the truth, you shouldn't underestimate that. If this is all a crock and City know it, it's immaterial what "evidence" the PL has, because the club knows it's all politically motivated nonsense. Soriano knows the PL does not have a smoking gun, and how does he know this? Because no gun exists! If there was we wouldn't be contesting these charges we'd be plea bargaining.



City's reference to reputational damage was made when UEFA started their merry go round, when the PL charges landed City issued this....

"Manchester City Football Club is surprised by the issuing of these alleged breaches of the Premier League rules, particularly given the extensive engagement and vast amount of detailed materials that the EPL has been provided with. The club welcomes the review of this matter by an independent Commission, to impartially consider the comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence that exists in support of its position.

"As such we look forward to this matter being put to rest once and for all."

The key word here is "impartially" meaning?....Free from political interference.

Soriano has being doing the rounds telling everyone it's all bullshit, of course he would, wouldn't he? Not necessarily, crisis management is more subtle than that. Soriano is so bullish because whatever the PL has he knows it's not the "evidence", and why is he so confident? Because he knows there's no evidence to be had, and how does he know that? Because there is no crime.

I repeat, we wouldn't be here now if the PL had its evidence, there would be no independent panel, we'd be licking our wounds after a good kicking.




Precedent is no guide here. A four year investigation and yet it has to go to an independent panel! An independent panel after four years! I repeat four years! All those years and Soriano isn't doing a perp walk! And let's not forget the timing of the charges, conveniently released just ahead of the white paper on the independent regulator. Nor should we forget that rushed incomprehensible charge sheet, issued with no pre-warning for City. A charge sheet, consisting of little more than a confusing bunch of references, that had to be amended the afternoon of the morning it was issued! Then amended again two days later, and why did it look so rushed? After four years of painstaking meticulous investigation? It looked rushed because it was rushed, and why was it rushed?.....Political expediency.

This has all the hallmarks of an organisation buckling under pressure from big beast bullies. If the PL has what you're suggesting they have, irrefutable dirt on the PL champions no less! Then you wouldn't have this dogs dinner, not this high profile, not after four years.

This investigation had been buried by the PL, it stinks coz it's rotten, dug up in a hurry by the PL under instruction from Yanky owners and Blofeld of Haringey, there's no other plausible explanation.

That my friend is wonderful. Well said TPF.

 

[Tony - MCFC]

I'm constantly amazed at the number of people who don't believe that the media indulges in systematic bias against certain clubs, when they absolutely do. I'm similarly amazed by those people who will acknowledge the possibility of political bias on the front pages of particular newspapers, but deny the same possibility when it comes to the back pages.
Just taking the Mail as an example, every article comes with a comments section. The paper's aim is to ensure that as many people as possible click on those articles, in order that they might maximise the advertising revenue central to their continued existence. It does this on the front pages by appealing to its largest readership demographic. Endless negative stories about lefties, teachers, lazy public servants, Meghan Markle, soft judges, asylum seekers, the cancel culture, 'militant' unions, remoaners, Gary Lineker etc etc are always the order of the day, because the Mail knows its foam flecked gammon army will hammer away with such fury that their keyboards will catch fire.
As to the back pages then, which two clubs have far and away the biggest fan bases in this country? And which club do you think is an oven ready enemy for both, having deprived them of hundreds of millions in prize money and trophies since 2011? Once you've joined the dots by answering those two questions, the penny should drop. City have been portrayed as football ruining, cheating, nouveau riche, sportswashing, plastic, no European pedigree, obscene spending (complete with squad cost comparisons, once famously when we weren't even one of the teams playing), human rights abusing, dodgy Arab owned, corrupt, 'dirty' oil money funded, success buying filth, non-stop for 15 years now, and our 'guilt' as regards the current PL investigation has long since been declared as fact.
Other papers, most notably the Guardian, have clear editorial policies when it comes to City and I defy you to find a single article from Miguel Delaney, Barney Ronay, Jonathan Liew etc that doesn't contain at least one of the phrases "state owned project", "oil funded" or "sportswashing". I've seen other journalists call our fans 'grubby apologists' and 'filthy rats', I've seen domestic broadcasters stuff their panels with rag pundits for our European games and listened to them call us mercenaries and wait until the half time interval to pan the camera around the crowd and sneer at us for having empty seats, and I've turned on the radio and heard us called "disgusting" and a "Frankenstein club". It's been relentless and no other club has ever had to put up with an onslaught of even remotely comparable degree. It doesn't mean that all journalists and broadcasters are out to get us, but compared to our immediate rivals we're a country mile ahead in the vilification stakes

Brilliant post

 

[red 2 hats]

I'm constantly amazed at the number of people who don't believe that the media indulges in systematic bias against certain clubs, when they absolutely do. I'm similarly amazed by those people who will acknowledge the possibility of political bias on the front pages of particular newspapers, but deny the same possibility when it comes to the back pages.
Just taking the Mail as an example, every article comes with a comments section. The paper's aim is to ensure that as many people as possible click on those articles, in order that they might maximise the advertising revenue central to their continued existence. It does this on the front pages by appealing to its largest readership demographic. Endless negative stories about lefties, teachers, lazy public servants, Meghan Markle, soft judges, asylum seekers, the cancel culture, 'militant' unions, remoaners, Gary Lineker etc etc are always the order of the day, because the Mail knows its foam flecked gammon army will hammer away with such fury that their keyboards will catch fire.
As to the back pages then, which two clubs have far and away the biggest fan bases in this country? And which club do you think is an oven ready enemy for both, having deprived them of hundreds of millions in prize money and trophies since 2011? Once you've joined the dots by answering those two questions, the penny should drop. City have been portrayed as football ruining, cheating, nouveau riche, sportswashing, plastic, no European pedigree, obscene spending (complete with squad cost comparisons, once famously when we weren't even one of the teams playing), human rights abusing, dodgy Arab owned, corrupt, 'dirty' oil money funded, success buying filth, non-stop for 15 years now, and our 'guilt' as regards the current PL investigation has long since been declared as fact.
Other papers, most notably the Guardian, have clear editorial policies when it comes to City and I defy you to find a single article from Miguel Delaney, Barney Ronay, Jonathan Liew etc that doesn't contain at least one of the phrases "state owned project", "oil funded" or "sportswashing". I've seen other journalists call our fans 'grubby apologists' and 'filthy rats', I've seen domestic broadcasters stuff their panels with rag pundits for our European games and listened to them call us mercenaries and wait until the half time interval to pan the camera around the crowd and sneer at us for having empty seats, and I've turned on the radio and heard us called "disgusting" and a "Frankenstein club". It's been relentless and no other club has ever had to put up with an onslaught of even remotely comparable degree. It doesn't mean that all journalists and broadcasters are out to get us, but compared to our immediate rivals we're a country mile ahead in the vilification stakes

Outstanding post, I doff my cap.

 

[Chappie]

That’s a fair point but UEFA at both stages ( hearing and appeal ) ruled they did indeed have a smoking gun it was only when it went to CAS did they deliver the final outcome.
In the PL process there isn’t CAS asa long stop

We have no idea how the panel will view the evidence UEFA ruled that the evidence had reached “ comfortable “ whereas CAS said UEFA had got it wrong.

Rest assured their are no smoking guns on either side.

 

[terraloon]

I've not replied to you previously because I really don't think this is a place for a Chelsea fan (even one that may or may not have an understanding). But the above is not correct. So for the benefit of City fans...

First, there is no such thing as a smoking gun in a complex case of this type. UEFA overreached on its finding based on 7 emails and non-cooperation inferences when set against the standard of proof, the audited accounts and having to make good a multi-party conspiracy. CAS would always have found it very hard to establish the case against City unless it concluded its witnesses were liars. The 7 emails were never going to suffice.

The PL will have more documents, that is already clear. So again it won't be a case of a smoking gun - it will be about the evidence as a whole, witnesses, experts and, for the PL, somehow overcoming the reluctance of any hearing to find that people are liars/dishonest and worse. If it was just the same emails, I'd suggest we'd know with some confidence how the panel would look at them - exactly the same way as CAS. But it won't be.

The point I was trying to make is that at both the two stages of UEFAs process the respective panels ruled they had reached the standard of proof required. So ok delete the smoking gun phrase and replace it with evidence to reach the level of comfortable satisfaction.

They , UEFA, were convinced the evidence of their view just as City probably were when they tried unsuccessfully to argue the burden of proof should be beyond reasonable doubt. CAS did say that the evidence needed to be cogent ( clear , logical and convincing)

Its a fact that this matter can’t land up on the books of CAS.

 

[manimanc]

I'm constantly amazed at the number of people who don't believe that the media indulges in systematic bias against certain clubs, when they absolutely do. I'm similarly amazed by those people who will acknowledge the possibility of political bias on the front pages of particular newspapers, but deny the same possibility when it comes to the back pages.
Just taking the Mail as an example, every article comes with a comments section. The paper's aim is to ensure that as many people as possible click on those articles, in order that they might maximise the advertising revenue central to their continued existence. It does this on the front pages by appealing to its largest readership demographic. Endless negative stories about lefties, teachers, lazy public servants, Meghan Markle, soft judges, asylum seekers, the cancel culture, 'militant' unions, remoaners, Gary Lineker etc etc are always the order of the day, because the Mail knows its foam flecked gammon army will hammer away with such fury that their keyboards will catch fire.
As to the back pages then, which two clubs have far and away the biggest fan bases in this country? And which club do you think is an oven ready enemy for both, having deprived them of hundreds of millions in prize money and trophies since 2011? Once you've joined the dots by answering those two questions, the penny should drop. City have been portrayed as football ruining, cheating, nouveau riche, sportswashing, plastic, no European pedigree, obscene spending (complete with squad cost comparisons, once famously when we weren't even one of the teams playing), human rights abusing, dodgy Arab owned, corrupt, 'dirty' oil money funded, success buying filth, non-stop for 15 years now, and our 'guilt' as regards the current PL investigation has long since been declared as fact.
Other papers, most notably the Guardian, have clear editorial policies when it comes to City and I defy you to find a single article from Miguel Delaney, Barney Ronay, Jonathan Liew etc that doesn't contain at least one of the phrases "state owned project", "oil funded" or "sportswashing". I've seen other journalists call our fans 'grubby apologists' and 'filthy rats', I've seen domestic broadcasters stuff their panels with rag pundits for our European games and listened to them call us mercenaries and wait until the half time interval to pan the camera around the crowd and sneer at us for having empty seats, and I've turned on the radio and heard us called "disgusting" and a "Frankenstein club". It's been relentless and no other club has ever had to put up with an onslaught of even remotely comparable degree. It doesn't mean that all journalists and broadcasters are out to get us, but compared to our immediate rivals we're a country mile ahead in the vilification stakes

That sir is completely brilliant.

Bravo blue, bravo.