PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

projectriver said:
Hard to understand your point(s). You are fixated on irrelevant semantics and the absence of public statements. As I said earlier, read the FAQ.
Click to expand...
Agree with Dribble, in as far as the Premier League have only ever said in their statement that City breached Premier League Rules. Never anywhere did they refer to charges or being charged. Another one dreamed up by the media fuckwits.
 
hgblue said:
I said many years ago when this shite first got going that we should have challenged this bollocks in the courts.
Click to expand...
The club tried to have the PLs investigation moved to Commercial Court and failed..

You can’t just ‘challenge in court’ if the court says it doesn’t have jurisdiction.
 
Iassel said:
The club tried to have the PLs investigation moved to Commercial Court and failed..

You can’t just ‘challenge in court’ if the court says it doesn’t have jurisdiction.
Click to expand...
That wasn't what the case tried to do. But you can't move it to the High Court just because you prefer it.
 
Ubiquitous said:
Just don't engage, turn it into a joke! Who cares what other people think? We're living the dream!
Click to expand...
I do mate but I don’t know if the younger ones coming through will as they haven’t seen us through the shit years and can take anything thrown at us but hopefully they carry our humour and not giving a shit on with them
 
Sid Snott said:
Agree with Dribble, in as far as the Premier League have only ever said in their statement that City breached Premier League Rules. Never anywhere did they refer to charges or being charged. Another one dreamed up by the media fuckwits.
Click to expand...
But as Stefan says, it’s purely semantics some cling to, potentially to personally feel better about the whole thing?

Saying the club haven’t been charged, only ‘referred to tribunal’ is like saying your wife hasn’t left you when she’s taken the dog and moved in with Marcellus Wallace.
 
Stoned Rose said:
If we’ve provided irrefutable evidence how can we have not co-operated?
Click to expand...

I imagine the irrefutable evidence is for the panel and was kept back from the investigation, presumably because they had no right to see it because it was, imho, external.

I am thinking the PL claims the club have not cooperated by not providing this evidence, whereas the club says it has provided everything to the investigation that it had to under the rules. Which is why I think even the non-cooperation allegation isn't a slam dunk for the PL.
 
swintonjamie said:
This is a weird statement, basically says it only stops City (and maybe Chelsea) then says doesn’t understand the logic as doesn’t stop anyone…he’s answered his own question surely?
Click to expand...

The fact he openly says “it doesn’t stop anybody” is all I need to hear, the bent cunts.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Let me summarise for anyone still trying to get their head around whether the club has been accused of fraud and, if so, why the authorities aren't banging the club's back doors in. Literally and figuratively.

Firstly, this is a breach of contract case. The allegations are that the club breached its contract with the PL. Which is why the referral to the panel doesn't mention the word "fraud", only the alleged breaches of the rules that form part of the contract. It's not a criminal case, no-one is going to jail following the panel's decision.

But, the combination of allegations (presenting errors in the accounts, disguising equity injections, acting in bad faith, failing FFP) do effectively represent fraudulent activity if proven, and the civil sanctions can be punitive. City's lawyers made this point at CAS, CAS agreed and you can be sure the club's lawyers will be doing the same in front of the panel. Why? Because it raises the cogency of the evidence required to prove the allegations. It is generally accepted on here that there is little chance the PL have the evidence to prove their most serious allegations. The higher cogency makes it almost impossible, imho.

So, if the allegations effectively represent fraudulent activity, why aren't the authorities at the Etihad now? Well, there is no definitive answer because no two situations are the same, but let me ask you this. If you were head of the SFO, you had seen UEFA's charges and how they were dismissed, you had followed the PL's allegations, but have no knowledge of the PL's evidence, other than the fact it should most probably be based on the same as UEFA's evidence, what would you do? Go into the PL and the Etihad all guns blazing with your limited resources to get to the bottom of it? Or wait until the panel comes to a conclusion and then decide what to do? I think that is an easy decision, tbh, especially given the way CAS dealt with UEFA's charges.

All imho, of course, and open to being bashed by the lawyers on here.
Click to expand...
Wouldn’t the SFO only become involved if the PL handed them evidence of Serious wrongdoing at this stage? Plus, would the PL would be obliged to hand over any evidence or not?
 
citizen_maine said:
The questions he should be asking is why does anybody need to be stopped and from what?
Click to expand...

Underneath his analysis on twitter someone asks if it's the smaller clubs/PL trying to reign in the big six.

He actually says this is only going to affect "one or two of the big six", and says that it's being driven by "one of the big six". Given who voted, it's either Liverpool, Arsenal, or Spurs. Which isn't much of a surprise.
 
Maly said:
Wouldn’t the SFO only become involved if the PL handed them evidence of Serious wrongdoing at this stage? Plus, would the PL would be obliged to hand over any evidence or not?
Click to expand...

I am guessing the decision to launch, or not, a SFO investigation would depend on an ongoing assessment of what the evidence is? What do we know so far? We know the evidence presented at CAS by Uefa and the overwhelming counter-evidence from the club that led to release from all the charges except non-cooperation which isn't a fraud issue. We know the PL case is originally based on the same evidence as the Uefa charges (although the PL may have some more from the club's books). Apart from that, nothing new. Not enough by a long chalk for the SFO to consider raiding anyone, imho.

Also, the PL is contractually obliged to keep the disciplinary process confidential. They can't just call the SFO, at least until the process is over.

On the other hand, if the PL was raided in an evidence gathering exercise, they would presumably have to comply. Not that that is going to happen for the above reasons, imo.
 
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