PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[cheekybids]

A few thoughts/questions from a non expert concerning these charges and the uefa ones too, and the involvement of the media in all this. Please excuse the generalisation of charges etc and apologies if I get any details wrong.

A few years ago uefa announced a two year ban on City for european games for breaches of their ffp rules.

These charges were thrown out by the first independent official body( cas ) that looked at them, because uefas case was weak and the main evidence of stolen emails were already tainted with crime and tampering, we won, regardless of how the media like to portray it.

Given the above is correct, who in their right mind would sanction the ban and announce it to the world with just the evidence they held? they MUST have known it was shit and would fail.
The "olive branch" of a reduced ban which was offered prior to cas was almost an admittance of weakness when looked at in hindsight, but had we accepted that, we would have been forever guilty for ducking the hearing. A fantastic outcome for those who would see us destroyed and well worth a shot from their perspective.

Has anybody come out and said that they were ultimately responsible for what was a farcically transparent attempt to falsly ban us from a competition with no real proof of guilt, and who was pushing for it.
Has there ever been a trail to follow back to the "brainchild" of all that, or do they just close ranks to protect each other, because if I ran a sporting body like uefa, and somebody publicly embarrassed it like that I would like to know who was responsible.

I know that the likes of gill and parry have been talked about on here and their input really was a possibility too. European footballs governing body has undertaken proceedings against one of its members with very little chance of winning, yet all the fallout revolves around us "getting off" instead of the real story.
Surely there must be journalists intrepid enough to smell a story, a story of members clubbing their power against another member and using uefa as a tool for their own ends, it smacks of all sorts of probabilities all the way up to possible corruption.

Why would no one want to take a look at that, its a massive story, but sadly one that no one wants to write. It would seem that the media are only interested in one side, the side that has the established elite and history clubs on it.

Now to the current pl charges, I suspect that its basically the same thing repeated at domestic football level. Probably the same culprits now using their collective power against a fellow member with the pl as the weapon of choice this time.

Again, the media have set about us with the same vigour as the uefa farce, have they learned their lesson from that, have they hell, that is not their want.
They are the biggest weapon of the cartel in all of this, not uefa, not the pl either as their efforts were/are bound to fail, but the media reach people with their falsehoods, and in a way that makes us guilty whatever the official verdict is.

The media is the only thing that has given creedence to any of the uefa charges, and the pl charges too, it is they who have tried City and found us guilty and although we won at cas and am sure we will win v the pl too. It is our enemies that will win when the media again claim a "technicality or loophole" saved us from the fate we deserve.

I dont really blame uefa and the pl, I pity them, they are like battered housewives to the bullying cartel who they think they need to serve to survive. When really what they need is to stand on their own feet and treat all clubs at the same level.

The media though, they are the whores with absolutely no self worth, bought and paid for by the cartel.

Ultimately we are winning, City are growing still, attracting new fans, winning trophys and all done in spite of the above. A fantastic achievement really, and who knows, soon I might be able to talk about how well we play when someone mentions City, instead of having to fight our corner over perceived wrongdoings.

After we win against the current charges I truly hope we get properly vindicated in a way that nobody can deny and put these history wankers to bed once and for all.

Clear & organised.

 

[FantasyIreland]

Just fucking get on with giving us an inconsequential fine for some obscure and meaningless charge hidden within the 115,and we can then get on with winning more trophies,earnng more money,and creating more history without the concern of swatting flies.

 

[Bill Walker]

A few thoughts/questions from a non expert concerning these charges and the uefa ones too, and the involvement of the media in all this. Please excuse the generalisation of charges etc and apologies if I get any details wrong.

A few years ago uefa announced a two year ban on City for european games for breaches of their ffp rules.

These charges were thrown out by the first independent official body( cas ) that looked at them, because uefas case was weak and the main evidence of stolen emails were already tainted with crime and tampering, we won, regardless of how the media like to portray it.

Given the above is correct, who in their right mind would sanction the ban and announce it to the world with just the evidence they held? they MUST have known it was shit and would fail.
The "olive branch" of a reduced ban which was offered prior to cas was almost an admittance of weakness when looked at in hindsight, but had we accepted that, we would have been forever guilty for ducking the hearing. A fantastic outcome for those who would see us destroyed and well worth a shot from their perspective.

Has anybody come out and said that they were ultimately responsible for what was a farcically transparent attempt to falsly ban us from a competition with no real proof of guilt, and who was pushing for it.
Has there ever been a trail to follow back to the "brainchild" of all that, or do they just close ranks to protect each other, because if I ran a sporting body like uefa, and somebody publicly embarrassed it like that I would like to know who was responsible.

I know that the likes of gill and parry have been talked about on here and their input really was a possibility too. European footballs governing body has undertaken proceedings against one of its members with very little chance of winning, yet all the fallout revolves around us "getting off" instead of the real story.
Surely there must be journalists intrepid enough to smell a story, a story of members clubbing their power against another member and using uefa as a tool for their own ends, it smacks of all sorts of probabilities all the way up to possible corruption.

Why would no one want to take a look at that, its a massive story, but sadly one that no one wants to write. It would seem that the media are only interested in one side, the side that has the established elite and history clubs on it.

Now to the current pl charges, I suspect that its basically the same thing repeated at domestic football level. Probably the same culprits now using their collective power against a fellow member with the pl as the weapon of choice this time.

Again, the media have set about us with the same vigour as the uefa farce, have they learned their lesson from that, have they hell, that is not their want.
They are the biggest weapon of the cartel in all of this, not uefa, not the pl either as their efforts were/are bound to fail, but the media reach people with their falsehoods, and in a way that makes us guilty whatever the official verdict is.

The media is the only thing that has given creedence to any of the uefa charges, and the pl charges too, it is they who have tried City and found us guilty and although we won at cas and am sure we will win v the pl too. It is our enemies that will win when the media again claim a "technicality or loophole" saved us from the fate we deserve.

I dont really blame uefa and the pl, I pity them, they are like battered housewives to the bullying cartel who they think they need to serve to survive. When really what they need is to stand on their own feet and treat all clubs at the same level.

The media though, they are the whores with absolutely no self worth, bought and paid for by the cartel.

Ultimately we are winning, City are growing still, attracting new fans, winning trophys and all done in spite of the above. A fantastic achievement really, and who knows, soon I might be able to talk about how well we play when someone mentions City, instead of having to fight our corner over perceived wrongdoings.

After we win against the current charges I truly hope we get properly vindicated in a way that nobody can deny and put these history wankers to bed once and for all.

Yeah.
I've always wondered about that. put simplistically , if someone says you did something and takes you to some sort of court, be it civil or criminal, and you are found innocent, then surely to protect your reputation (or brand in the case of a business) you can countersue them for attempting to tarnish your reputation. AND in the eyes of many your brand IS then forever tarnished, even if found innocent.
I've often wondered why City don't go down this road ??

 

[give it to gordon]

Yeah.
I've always wondered about that. put simplistically , if someone says you did something and takes you to some sort of court, be it civil or criminal, and you are found innocent, then surely to protect your reputation (or brand in the case of a business) you can countersue them for attempting to tarnish your reputation. AND in the eyes of many your brand IS then forever tarnished, even if found innocent.
I've often wondered why City don't go down this road ??

Could City sue the gang of 8 for that letter begging cas to find us guilty ?

Could City have sued UEFA for the false ban and charges ?

Could City sue the premier league once cleared of these made up charges ?

If City had evidence that this was lead by certain clubs could City sue them ?

It's ok being cleared but we should than take action against our accusers

 

[Claytop]

It does highlight how we are dealt with in the media. BBC (who again just now have 2 photos of us plus mentions us in the caption) of a totally non related illegal streaming story) had a pre recorded story about our charges which went live minutes after we won the PL.
Everton stay up, not a mention of the charges anywhere

‘England’s worst club or worst cheaters’…

 

[brightwelleyes]

Could City sue the gang of 8 for that letter begging cas to find us guilty ?

Could City have sued UEFA for the false ban and charges ?

Could City sue the premier league once cleared of these made up charges ?

If City had evidence that this was lead by certain clubs could City sue them ?

It's ok being cleared but we should than take action against our accusers

Unless you no longer want to compete in the Premier League or UEFA Competitions, the answer to all the above is no.

 

[moomba]

Could City sue the gang of 8 for that letter begging cas to find us guilty ?

Could City have sued UEFA for the false ban and charges ?

Could City sue the premier league once cleared of these made up charges ?

If City had evidence that this was lead by certain clubs could City sue them ?

It's ok being cleared but we should than take action against our accusers

I think we'd prefer the end of the whole saga.

Suing would just give the usual suspects ammunition to keep slagging us.

 

[fierydan]

Yeah.
I've always wondered about that. put simplistically , if someone says you did something and takes you to some sort of court, be it civil or criminal, and you are found innocent, then surely to protect your reputation (or brand in the case of a business) you can countersue them for attempting to tarnish your reputation. AND in the eyes of many your brand IS then forever tarnished, even if found innocent.
I've often wondered why City don't go down this road ??

Courts don't find innocence,they find guilty of not guilty as charged.
In Scotland I believe they also have not proven.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Courts don't find innocence,they find guilty of not guilty as charged.
In Scotland I believe they also have not proven.

In City's case you are found guilty, or not guilty on a technicality.

 

[Centurions]

Grade 1 Arsehole that fella

Who is making money off people who watch, read and retweet or link him.

Perhaps he isn't the daft one in the equation?

 

[LeonardoDaVnci]

Could City sue the gang of 8 for that letter begging cas to find us guilty ?

Could City have sued UEFA for the false ban and charges ?

Could City sue the premier league once cleared of these made up charges ?

If City had evidence that this was lead by certain clubs could City sue them ?

It's ok being cleared but we should than take action against our accusers

There are counter arguments to the intuitive urge for revenge or retribution.

For example, we are 5% shareholders of the PL so we would be in effect suing ourselves. As explained previously, the "Streisand Effect" is a like an unintended PR effect, or a PR own goal. This means you inadvertently escalate negativity about the club and perpetuate the anti City campaign against us in the MSM.

On field success is by far the most effective way to go, eg would you rather help to exclude the rags/dips from the UCL for 4 years or sleep better knowing we'd sued them say for £10M.

 

[BrianW]

I think City might have a case against some of the so-called journalists spouting their gall as if we are guilty on all points.

Normally, the word 'alleged' is used with great regularity. The reason for this is that if you call Joe Bloggs a murderer/rapist/paedo or whatever and he is subsequently acquitted he is within his rights to sue you. The word 'alleged' is barely being used in City's case.

 

[LeonardoDaVnci]

I think City might have a case against some of the so-called journalists spouting their gall as if we are guilty on all points.

Normally, the word 'alleged' is used with great regularity. The reason for this is that if you call Joe Bloggs a murderer/rapist/paedo or whatever and he is subsequently acquitted he is within his rights to sue you. The word 'alleged' is barely being used in City's case.

I believe the PL case is classed as "quasi-judicial" by legal professionals but to most of us it's a kangaroo court. Consequently there is no concept of "sub-juduce". City can be condemned, santicioned and slandered every day in the MSM with impunity.The PL/cartel were well aware this would happen and no doubt convinced them to go ahead with the flawed scatter gun charges.

 

[BrianW]

This means they cannot be guilty of contempt of court. But they are still, at least potentially, guilty of uttering libel and defamation, and City might have a case on those grounds. Whether City will bother is another question, but as a matter of principle, if you are a person of stature it is not good practice to allow people to libel you without challenge.

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

Could City sue the gang of 8 for that letter begging cas to find us guilty ?

Could City have sued UEFA for the false ban and charges ?

Could City sue the premier league once cleared of these made up charges ?

If City had evidence that this was lead by certain clubs could City sue them ?

It's ok being cleared but we should than take action against our accusers

Hopefully we will on the pitch. I suspect Pep will prime our players when we play those clubs.

I do wish he would come out and just tell those clubs, we will play with extra fire in our bellies against you lot.

 

[TedofChume]

Intended to come back and answer this at the weekend, but was busy with family stuff on Sunday, while Monday was a working day for me (and proved quite a tough one).

Yes, he meant EU law and specifically competition law. EU competition law states that a restriction on competition can be treated as allowable if it can be shown to give rise to benefits to consumers which outweigh any restrictions of competition.

IIRC, he managed to secure an agreement from the relevant directorate of the European Commission that the rules did give rise to such benefits and, as I recall, there was also a statement that sport in general should be treated as a special case as compared with other economic sectors. This is something sporting bodies often argue, but with wildly varying degrees of merit IMO.

But the thing is that the Commission is an enforcement body. While statements to the above effect were no doubt useful for Platini, the ultimate decision as to what does and doesn't breach EU law lies with the Court of Justice, so the Commission's consent was no guarantee UEFA would prevail if the matter were litigated. There were some challenges working their way through the system, but to be honest I didn't follow what happened to them.

In terms of someone litigating in an individual country whose FA is a member of UEFA to have UEFA regulations declared unlawful in that state, I think that would be of limited value. They'd simply exclude the litigant in question, or all clubs from that country if the FA were supporting the challenge.

It's hard to see UEFA seeing too much of a problem in a legal challenge in most non-EU states, whereas obviously the heft of the EU would give them serious problems of its courts made an adverse ruling. IMO, they'd think they could ride out an adverse ruling even in post-Brexit Britain, where currently the most lucrative domestic league is played,

I'm not sure that is correct.

Manchester City and UEFA are still a businessws in the European Economic Area trading with other EU businesses (ie other EU clubs) under rules set by UEFA. As such Eueopean Union laws apply and City would have every right to sue any other party in the European court.

The difficulty I think is that you have to sue in a domestic court first. I think the only way to do this would be to bring a defamation case against Rui Pinto and force him to reveal who paid him to besmirch Manchester City's reputation.

 

[KS55]

I'm not sure that is correct.

Manchester City and UEFA are still a businessws in the European Economic Area trading with other EU businesses (ie other EU clubs) under rules set by UEFA. As such Eueopean Union laws apply and City would have every right to sue any other party in the European court.

The difficulty I think is that you have to sue in a domestic court first. I think the only way to do this would be to bring a defamation case against Rui Costa and force him to reveal who paid him to besmirch Manchester City's reputation.

I suspect he’ll be in jail for a long time.

 

[nmc]

I'm not sure that is correct.

Manchester City and UEFA are still a businessws in the European Economic Area trading with other EU businesses (ie other EU clubs) under rules set by UEFA. As such Eueopean Union laws apply and City would have every right to sue any other party in the European court.

The difficulty I think is that you have to sue in a domestic court first. I think the only way to do this would be to bring a defamation case against Rui Costa and force him to reveal who paid him to besmirch Manchester City's reputation.

This Rui Costa?
Or maybe Rui Pinto ; )

 

[TedofChume]

This Rui Costa? View attachment 81364
Or maybe Rui Pinto ; )

Oops!!!

 

[cheekybids]

There are counter arguments to the intuitive urge for revenge or retribution.

For example, we are 5% shareholders of the PL so we would be in effect suing ourselves. As explained previously, the "Streisand Effect" is a like an unintended PR effect, or a PR own goal. This means you inadvertently escalate negativity about the club and perpetuate the anti City campaign against us in the MSM.

On field success is by far the most effective way to go, eg would you rather help to exclude the rags/dips from the UCL for 4 years or sleep better knowing we'd sued them say for £10M.

Fuck it, pull the pin.