PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

eastmanc said:
our reputation is in tatters with opposition fans and media and even if we are cleared of everything we will still be seen as guilty in their biased eyes.
Click to expand...
They're not interested in the truth they WANT us to be guilty and they want to tarnish the trophies so they feel less eaten up about it. It's like showing a racist some facts about immigration, or whatever, they won't change their opinion and say oh yeah, fair enough I was wrong, they'll go nah mate not interested, fake news, etc etc
 
SamBlue said:
Today's The Guardian Sport Section has a very details description how the whole process and the panel are working, both on Everton's case and in general. What really troubles me is the 'balance of probability' clause as the cut-off point for the panel to make a decision.
Click to expand...

Balance of probability sounds like our worst nightmare. If that's what the "Independent Panel's" decision comes down to regardless of evidence from either side, why don't they just toss a fucking coin ?
 
johnnytapia said:
If Pannick were in a regular court of aw, I’d be very, very comfortable and sure of our case. This panel could be little more than a self-serving charade where there is little / no recourse for appeal to an upper tier.

It will be interesting to see who / how Everton appeal their sanction.

On a more general note, how FFP has never been demolished as anti-competitive, baffles me.

Incidentally, Pannick is an Arsenal fan. Just sayin’ !
Click to expand...

He’s worked for tonnes of clients and who he supports won’t come into it.

Reviews on blackstone

“It’s a joy if you are on the same side, a concern if you are on the other”

“A fearsome, authoritative intellect”
“He is the most brilliant advocate at the bar”
“He is a star of law and is very focused on winning points”
 
Roger Mellie said:
I have no faith in the PL after what happened to John Terry.

Found not guilty in a court of law but was banned by the PL
Click to expand...
I don't know if you bothered to read how it works, the whole panel is the judge, the jury (and the executioner.) But that clause is really worrisome for me. They do not need to find us guilty or caught red-handed on any single charge, just to have a hunch we are guilty WE ARE DONE!
And the geezer who picked the panel to find make judgement had also picked the appeal panel. From the same pool of 'the experts'. Just to think somebody thought this out without any questions asked is insane. Unbelievable Jeff!
 
haha Everton-United right next weekend, home fans will need to make sure Dyche / players has all the support to beat red tops fuckers.
 
MillisleBlue said:
Balance of probability sounds like our worst nightmare. If that's what the "Independent Panel's" decision comes down to regardless of evidence from either side, why don't they just toss a fucking coin ?
Click to expand...
CAS ruled on the basis of balance of probabilities and found UEFA never even came close to satisfying that standard. It will take some very compelling evidence to demonstrate that City, Big 5 auditors and Etisalat 'probably' committed fraud.
 
Jam Tomorrow said:
It’s all here in this link, surprised it’s not been thrown down the memory hole tbh


Football: Spurs are 'staggered' by punishment: Tottenham escape

ALAN SUGAR, the Tottenham Hotspur chairman, last night felt like the man who has avoided the death penalty only to be given life imprisonment. The Football Association's punishment for Spurs' financial irregularities included the deduction of 12 points from next season's Premiership campaign...
www.independent.co.uk www.independent.co.uk
Click to expand...

Ta mate appreciated:)
 
SamBlue said:
Today's The Guardian Sport Section has a very details description how the whole process and the panel are working, both on Everton's case and in general. What really troubles me is the 'balance of probability' clause as the cut-off point for the panel to make a decision.
Click to expand...
Me too mate. But I think it works both ways, on the one hand they can punish us on circumstantial evidence I.e. what they have fished out of the Der Spiegel hacked trove on the ‘balance of probability’, on the other hand can they hand out a really severe punishment on the basis of the same circumstantial evidence? Would that be an egregious overreach? I think it would be and would cause a huge legal shitstorm. No doubt they want us out of the league, ideally shut down. But that’s easier said than done. With Everton, Chelsea and City in their sights and the question around Newcastle’s ownership still up their sleeve, they could force a split. Why should so called lesser clubs simply accept their place as make weights for the red cartel? The same cartel who want to abolish parachute payments for relegated clubs via their EFL plant Rick Parry.
 
A good time to repost this

Manchester City FC 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.
 
Gorton_Tubster said:
Currently , today I'm not mithered. I just want them to bring a conclusion to it. I'm annoyed at our club for not defending this more publicly, I'm annoyed that the only pov on this is currently being given by our opposition fanbases and pundits, reporters. Relatively nothing from City podcasts, City media accounts.

Really disappointed if this goes on and on then we're found guilty. That will really piss me off with the club tbh. But that's what makes me think our club know this isn't going to result in any charges.
Click to expand...
Never interrupt your enemy whilst he’s making a mistake.
 
bluemonkey71 said:
He’s worked for tonnes of clients and who he supports won’t come into it.

Reviews on blackstone

“It’s a joy if you are on the same side, a concern if you are on the other”

“A fearsome, authoritative intellect”
“He is the most brilliant advocate at the bar”
“He is a star of law and is very focused on winning points”
Click to expand...

Yeah yeah but less about @gordondaviesmoustache what about this Pannick kid?
 
SamBlue said:
I don't know if you bothered to read how it works, the whole panel is the judge, the jury (and the executioner.) But that clause is really worrisome for me. They do not need to find us guilty or caught red-handed on any single charge, just to have a hunch we are guilty WE ARE DONE!
And the geezer who picked the panel to find make judgement had also picked the appeal panel. From the same pool of 'the experts'. Just to think somebody thought this out without any questions asked is insane. Unbelievable Jeff!
Click to expand...
It’s not worth worrying about. What will be will be.

The balance of probability (51%+) is a lower bar than in a court where it’s beyond reasonable doubt. Hence Terry got a ban, but not a criminal record.

It’s not a dissimilar process to CAS. We just have to wait for the decision.
 
Gorton_Tubster said:
I dont know why would they. But why have you reframed what I was saying into something ridiculous? Well done on wining the talking? whatever.
Click to expand...
But what would your criteria be for releasing a statement if you think no marks chatting shit is ridiculous. That's all that is happening at the moment and you want a new statement?
 
Jesus2020 said:
They're not interested in the truth they WANT us to be guilty and they want to tarnish the trophies so they feel less eaten up about it. It's like showing a racist some facts about immigration, or whatever, they won't change their opinion and say oh yeah, fair enough I was wrong, they'll go nah mate not interested, fake news, etc etc
Click to expand...
So true. It makes them feel better about their own clubs failings.
 
Seems to me that the PL is hoping that their most likely success lies in the non-cooperation route.
If they have no substantive evidence for the financial charges, and many believe that they don’t, then we are left with non-cooperation and a big fine.
The reaction by the great unwashed to the CAS fine for the same charge was to assume that ‘non-cooperation‘ meant we had something to hide and I feel the PL will hope for a similar reaction.
BUT….if the PL started this knowing that they had no real evidence and they were putting all their eggs in the non-cooperation basket, then the whole campaign was surely verging on fraudulent, and they surely can’t expect City to pay a fine which would be seen by many as an attempt to hide the facts and thus be an endorsement of the PLs investigation which had no substance whatsoever.
 
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