PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

mancboy said:
it depends if they believed whether that evidence would be viewed in good faith and whether it was commercially sensitive or not.
Click to expand...

I have been involved in plenty of investigations. You only hand over what you are legally obliged to do. If you hand over other information, you are opening the door to, and setting a precedent for, further investigation.

The CAS investigation is a good example. The club held back the external information until CAS. Even then UEFA disputed the methodology behind some of it. In the investigation phase, they could have asked for more detailed external information or information using a different methodology and, if the club refused, it would have reflected badly. In the arbitration phase, UEFA could only point out their objections and then CAS had to make its mind up. It's a question of controlling the flow of information.
 
Brightwell Bros. said:
The first five years the press thought we were a billionaire's plaything he'd drop when he got bored. I've said before, there is plenty to say about City, UAE, and middle eastern money more generally and it's relationship to global capital, but our sports journos have been woefully under prepared for making sense of what is happening.
Click to expand...
They are, with a couple of notable exceptions, a dull, boring and most uninspiring bunch. I understand that the internet makes them chase clicks but, even so, they are very low quality. Wankers.
 
mancboy said:
it depends if they believed whether that evidence would be viewed in good faith and whether it was commercially sensitive or not.
Click to expand...

Of course. And if it IS the case that they didn't provide it for that or any other reason, than the non-cooperation charge should arguably be upheld. And all else cleared, if the evidence so shows it. And that would be ok, if the club took a conscious decision that protecting commercial interests is more important than what the PL consider cooperation, I'd have zero issue with that. IF that is what went on, goes without saying.
 
Last edited:
argyle said:
This is hysterical nonsense.

City can't stop media outlets writing stuff about us that we don't like. Only if they cross into slander or libel which is very rare and even then City would just have a correction or article taken down.

Various journalists have said that behind the scenes, City are very active at correcting articles or things said.

If you don't like what's written or said, stop reading it and listening to it. Some seem to go out of their way to find stuff so they can get angry.

The damage is done with who? rags and liverpool fans? Fans of other teams don't like us anyway, they didn't before the charges and they won't long after.

Blues need to grow a set.
Click to expand...
Wise words. Anyone can take a quick look on the internet this morning to see multiple outlets or individual ‘experts‘ garnering clicks along the lines ……Scum/Arse/ Dippers (insert club or individual) await decision in our case. They are no-news headline grabbers.

There was a was a thoughtful piece on 30p Anderson in one of the of the on-lines today (sorry I can’t post a link coz I can’t find it again).
Basically bemoaned the rise of the idiot and railed against news sources happy to quote his most barmy outbursts without balance coz it provoked a reader reaction and generated income.

Like politics, footy reporting has dumbed down in it’s frantic race to the bottom.

As Argyle suggests stop reading. You will enjoy your day more.
 
Dribble said:
If there is NEW evidence, it has to be substantial & substantiated.

My understanding is it's the same evidence but presented by a different, but related jurisdiction in the PL (European FA's make up UEFA), who have different lengths of limitations.

Not being privy to the detailed charges, prosecution/defence evidence, & with there being little information being released by either side, it's a dot connecting exercise for all except those involved.
Click to expand...
Your last two paragraphs sum things up nicely: you (and lots of us) think XYZ, whereas actually, you (and lots of us) know precisely nothing of what either side has / has not.
Ergo, 3 thousand+ pages of conjecture, caveats and, in some cases, unalloyed bollocks!
 
Dribble said:
If there is NEW evidence, it has to be substantial & substantiated.

My understanding is it's the same evidence but presented by a different, but related jurisdiction in the PL (European FA's make up UEFA), who have different lengths of limitations.

Not being privy to the detailed charges, prosecution/defence evidence, & with there being little information being released by either side, it's a dot connecting exercise for all except those involved.
Click to expand...

I don't thibk it can possibly be that, re differently length of limitations. Different interpretation of the same evidencs, sure (we saw that at CAS as well). But different limitations would then reinforce the basic (and false) throwaway that we got away with it with Uefa due to timebarring, when the club have claimed thatbeven the time barred evidence was in order and consistent with the rest, and CAS did not argue that.
 
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