PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[halfcenturyup]

He should’ve been fucked off ages ago.

It's all gone quiet, all gone quiet, all gone quiet over here ......

Didn't mind him really, he wasn't offensive at all. But he was like a dog with a bone, whoever he was, and was beginning to annoy @Chris in London. Once that happens, you are in trouble as I know only too well. Although I am proud to say I never got a "Holy Fuck" one line reply. :)

 

[halfcenturyup]

Aren't we?

 

[Shads]

Lets not forget that for the PL to make good on this one, you'd have to add in at least, AL JAZIRA SPORTS AND CULTURAL CLUB LIMITED, SPARKLEGLOW HOLDINGS LTD and, individually, Roberto Mancini and Phil Anderton (CEO that signed for Al Jazira) as yet further third parties to a conspiracy to save MCFC the £1.5m cost. None of these entities are likely to give witness evidence in support of the conspiracy/sham. Without that, this one looks very very difficult to prove to me if the panel are working to a High Court, English Law standard (as they should be).

There is a further aspect that shouldn't be ignored (in my opinion). Sometimes even decent lawyers/organisations are simply naive and don't really understand the substance/consequence of the allegations they are making. It is not impossible for organisations to overreach - this was one of the points I made in this piece... https://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/business-of-sport/arid-41072465.html

Given the additional elements of proof required for this piece and given it occurred 13 years ago (could be 14 years before any hearing), it was an area the PL obviously should have ignored especially given its (im)materiality. But they didn't. This suggests a lack of coherent, strategic thinking on the part of the PL.

I entirely agree with this. I have been involved with many lawsuits on both sides of the Atlantic where the case presented seemed poorly thought out and even inept. After initially being concerned that there was some clever strategy at play that I just couldn’t see, I resorted to a phrase told me by a good barrister friend of mine who incidentally is a sports law specialist. Don’t misconstrue incompetence for tactics…

 

[Shads]

Aside from trying to cut a deal, I agree with all that and don't know. I don't think this is a play for a settlement. Too far gone in my view. Of course, the other explanation, is our analysis on what they need to make out is well wide of the mark.

I think it was a gamble by the PL to get a deal that missed its mark. They clearly did not anticipate our owners desire to clear their name which no deal could realistically achieve.

 

[cheekybids]

I entirely agree wit this. I have been involved with many lawsuits on both sides of the Atlantic where the case presented seemed poorly thought out and even inept. After initially being concerned that there was some clever strategy at play that I just couldn’t see, I resorted to a phrase told me by a good barrister friend of mine who had an incidentally a sports law specialist. Don’t misconstrue incompetence for tactics…

Reminds me of “never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake” Napoleon

When you notice that an enemy is making an error, take care not to interfere with the enemy from completing it so you can take advantage at the right time.

 

[Shads]

Is it possible that the sheer breadth of the charges is largely due to our non-compliance? I.e. the PL don’t necessarily think we’ll be found guilty on many of the alleged breaches, but decided to charge us regardless as we wouldn’t provide the evidence they requested? Perhaps making a point about how dimly they viewed our refusal to co-operate?

I don’t think so. It’s a combination of machine gun darts to ensure that at least something sticks and an attempt to cover issues not dealt with at CAS. The construction of the PL rules means that a broad number of rules are allegedly breached as opposed to the broader brush charges dealt with by UEFA.
Also don’t forget the element of potential incompetence on the PL’s part here as well.
It is important to remember that since the High Court Discovery hearings we have ostensibly supplied a lot of the information requested. Khaldoon spoke about the extensive engagement between the parties. In my opinion at least.

 

[Shads]

Despite the PL investigation before the charges we have been able to sign Haaland, Grealish et al. Plus our commercial revenues have grown and we have had new investment in the club. Thankfully, City have a good story to tell and can present the facts to potential signings and potential investors/partners. Let's hope this garbage does not impact us going forwards.

WE HAVE COOPERATED. BELATEDLY. NOT EARLY ENOUGH TO AVOID A CHARGE OF NON COOPERATION, BUT ENOUGH FOR THE PL TO CONDUCT THEIR INVESTIGATION. IF TOLMIES HAIRDOO IS CORRECT, AND HE USUALLY IS, WE HAVE GIVEN THE PL ENOUGH DOCUMENTATION TO FILL A PORTAKABIN. SO THE NON COOPERATION CHARGE OF WHICH WE ARE IMO GUILTY IS NOT “YOU DIDN’T GIVE US THE DOCUMENTS AT ALL”, IT IS “YOU DIDN‘T GIVE US THE DOCUMENTS WE ASKED FOR WHEN WE ASKED FOR THEM.”


NO. SEE ABOVE.


I have replied by including my answers in capitals in the post above

The use of capitals is purely for ease of identification of my comments. im not shouting at you.

Honestly.

I genuinely believe that it is very difficult for the PL to make a case for failing to cooperate prior to the final Court hearing. It is entirely appropriate within English Law to have a Discovery dispute tested in Court prior to providing the information requested. It is not therefore a failure to cooperate if we following the final court ruling supplied everything we thought was appropriate or relevant to those requests. The ONLY way thereafter we can be found to have failed to cooperate is if we either provide further extensive documents relevant to those requests to the panel which were not supplied to the PL. Alternatively evidence is provided to show that documents that clearly exist and were relevant have been deliberately withheld.
I know others disagree with me here about this but I do not think a failure to cooperate is anything like as straightforward for the PL to find.

 

[Shads]

A quick follow-up then I will shut up about this as well. Honestly.

Just providing the information requested doesn't mean we have been co-operating in good faith, does it? If the club has been withholding evidence from the investigation that would exonerate the club from wrong-doing, but didn't provide it because the PL didn't request it, or don't have the authority to request it, wouldn't that be classified as non-compliance "in good faith"?

Thinking about accounting analysis from Etihad and ADUG that the PL knows we have because it was presented at CAS, for example.

If it was presented at CAS by Etihad or ADUG then it was not presented by us. It was not therefore our Discovery to make. If Etihad or ADUG provide documents to the panel that is not MCFC the member of the PL’s failure to provide.

 

[Shads]

I like you keep thinking is there any way the non cooperation can be defended?

I know we don’t know what or how they asked for evidence & we don’t know City’s response was.

I felt we had legitimate concerns with UEFA & evidence supported the concerns. Obviously not in eyes of the panel.

CAS had no choice we admitted a failure to cooperate. We will absolutely defend the charge on this occasion. I think We have a chance of being successful as well.

 

[Shads]

Oh, I don't think we can defend it. I think we are fucked on non-cooperation. I am just trying to get my head around what this list of breaches actually means.

And, as you can probably tell, I still don't see things the way others do.

I am very probably wrong but I owe it to myself to try to get it straight in my own mind.

I disagree. But then Stefan disagrees with me.