PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[remember arthur mann]

I also believe that this will be reported in such a "no smoke without fire" shitstorm that the general consensus will be that City "got off" on a technicality
It won't particularly bother me, but those looking forward to our day in the sun, will be in for a shock.

Yep, the Forest fan has been pushing the same agenda.

 

[KS55]

We've won it in 21,22,23 and 24, WHEN win it again in 25 that will be the ultimate piss take :-)

Corrected by Nostradamus.

 

[TheThirdDeano]

Does anyone know who this guy is

He’s a ****.
He obviously fancies himself a thinker and a writer but as we all know; brevity is the soul of wit so allow me to summarize his posts.

“City are guilty because I want them to be.”

 

[KS55]

More a fanny really.

Ah, that’s why he has two parts. A cock and a Fanny to make a fuck up.

 

[cheekybids]

Proper Norman Bates stuff.

Or Mother Bates…

 

[KS55]

I actually don't mind the twitter posts on here. It's useful to know what arguments are being concocted so you can destroy them.

I stopped reading that Magic Hat post because the bullshit started so early(skim read the rest). That person always makes bold claims in the strongest terms possible, but never backs it up. It literally feels like smoke and mirrors when you're reading it, because it is.

Oh wait... Magic Hat? Is it a parody account and we're all being clarkied?

"Look at my hands there's nothing in my hands... Everything I say is 100% real and not just want I want you to believe and spread all over the internet because I have a vendetta against City"

He's claiming CAS agreed the emails were real(really? wow) and unambiguous. That last part is bullshit because City provided the context which der Spiegel and UEFA got wrong.

He goes on to say that CAS made a 'finding of fact that the emails stated the planned intention to subvert FFP'. It's worded wierdly, probably because it's more magic hat smoke and mirrors. The "finding of fact" is the setup to make you believe CAS agreed the emails proved there was a planned intention to subvert FFP. He doesn't show you a quote from CAS(which should be a minimum requirement) where they said this, instead expecting you to take what he says at face value.

The next section gets worse. He moans "CAS was a farce" but must think the 'Independent' CFCB of UEFA's investigation and arbitration was totally legit and that decision should have stood? Next he's claiming UEFA messed up by only using a fraction of the emails available(bullshit again) and that's why the PL case will be different. I disagree, none of the emails released since seem to strengthen the case on the main allegation. The other stuff is either a new allegation that UEFA didn't attempt(probably because it was seen as a none starter) or no more believable than it was before. At any rate, he doesn't seem to undertand the emails alone would never meet the required standard of proof. They were only ever a reason to investigate to find actual evidence of what they think has occured, based on their interpretation of what was said in them. Yes there definitely are multiple interpretations, the correct context is key and only City truly knows it.

Then he's claiming CAS didn't apply the correct standard of proof, which is bullshit again. Since they were the ones that essentially pointed out UEFA failed to prove any of their claims to the standard required(swiss civil law, comfortable satisfaction) for the allegations that weren't time-barred. Or based on a trumped up non-cooperation charge which City didn't really deny, they claimed they had good reason and I agree with them. UEFA did not apply due process, never looked likely after UEFA leaked information before it even got to arbitration. They breached trust, broke their own confidentiality agreement, and most likely ignored a 200page document of evidence in City's defence(not interested in the truth, only making the charges stick by any means necessary).

I'm not a law or finance expert but from what I do know about CAS and the emails in question, I can spot his bullshit a mile off. Come to think of it, it does remind me of a certain twitter journalist.

The question is:

Is he really that pitifully informed/delusional/incompetant for something he spends so much time and effort convincing everyone he's an expert on?

Or

Is it more that he thinks most people are idiots and will believe anything he tells them, if he sells it hard enough?

It is abundantly clear that he does not understand that emails are not evidence of substantive events mentioned within them. The panel will have to see evidence that the rules were actually broken, even if they believe that we had that intent.

 

[Gone for a Burton]

Assuming no smoking gun, (which considering the number of PL leaks on other matters is highly unlikely) then I'm inclined to follow the logic of our main experts, and believe that ultimately City will be exonerated from the serious charges, essentially because:

1/CAS has already found in our favour
2/ The charges are so serious and the threshold so high that it will be virtually impossible to prove without reasonable doubt that City deliberately lied

However, I also believe that this will be reported in such a "no smoke without fire" shitstorm that the general consensus will be that City "got off" on a technicality

It won't particularly bother me, but those looking forward to our day in the sun, will be in for a shock.

We are already in the sun !!

Nothing can obliterate the experiences and memories we enjoyed in recent years.

Moving from superiority over the rags to supremacy over them is an experience I'm all ready relating to my grandchildren.

Superiority to Supremacy !!

 

[KS55]

We are already in the sun !!

Nothing can obliterate the experiences and memories we enjoyed in recent years.

Moving from superiority over the rags to supremacy over them is an experience I'm all ready relating to my grandchildren.

Superiority to Supremacy !!

“Never has so much been owed by so many to so few.”

 

[give it to gordon]

If City are found guilty using the same evidence that was used at CAS, does that undermine CAS ?

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

It is abundantly clear that he does not understand that emails are not evidence of substantive events mentioned within them. The panel will have to see evidence that the rules were actually broken, even if they believe that we had that intent.

Which was pretty well what the panel at CAS said.

 

[Scaring Europe to Death]

We are already in the sun !!

Nothing can obliterate the experiences and memories we enjoyed in recent years.

Moving from superiority over the rags to supremacy over them is an experience I'm all ready relating to my grandchildren.

Superiority to Supremacy !!

I'm not disagreeing, but my post was aimed at those who follow the naïve logic that the abuse will cease once we're exonerated

 

[citizen_maine]

If City are found guilty using the same evidence that was used at CAS, does that undermine CAS ?

I'd say it undermines the Independent Commission

 

[meltonblue]

If City are found guilty using the same evidence that was used at CAS, does that undermine CAS ?

If the IC find us guilty then they’re basically accusing several people of perjuring themselves at CAS. That’s not a step they’ll take lightly.

 

[bluemoon32]

I'm not disagreeing, but my post was aimed at those who follow the naïve logic that the abuse will cease once we're exonerated

If & i still think it's a big if, we are exonerated, the abuse will get even worse.
The gnashing of teeth & pure venom will be a sight to behold, we aint seen nothing yet

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

Assuming no smoking gun, (which considering the number of PL leaks on other matters is highly unlikely) then I'm inclined to follow the logic of our main experts, and believe that ultimately City will be exonerated from the serious charges, essentially because:

1/CAS has already found in our favour
2/ The charges are so serious and the threshold so high that it will be virtually impossible to prove without reasonable doubt that City deliberately lied

However, I also believe that this will be reported in such a "no smoke without fire" shitstorm that the general consensus will be that City "got off" on a technicality

It won't particularly bother me, but those looking forward to our day in the sun, will be in for a shock.

Agree with all this as the most likely outcome but what happens in the aftermath? I can't see anyone in the senior PL leadership team surviving. The media can't gloss over the fact they have lost multiple millions (perhaps up to £100m) on this farcical witchunt. The PL clubs have all subsidised this madness. The fall-out will be huge. Presumably some sort of crisis-management plan has been prepared, perhaps involving the new regulator. This will have been a disastrous PR disaster and a laughable defence of "we were right to enforce the rules" will not wash.

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

Does anyone know who this guy is

A school of thought was that it was Harris using a nom de plume, but he’s allegedly now boring everyone rigid as ‘City Rabid’, a would be humorous take on City Rabin. Of course he could be both or neither…..

 

[citizen_maine]

Agree with all this as the most likely outcome but what happens in the aftermath? I can't see anyone in the senior PL leadership team surviving. The media can't gloss over the fact they have lost multiple millions (perhaps up to £100m) on this farcical witchunt. The PL clubs have all subsidised this madness. The fall-out will be huge. Presumably some sort of crisis-management plan has been prepared, perhaps involving the new regulator. This will have been a disastrous PR disaster and a laughable defence of "we were right to enforce the rules" will not wash.

Will it?
From the PL perspective they believed they had grounds to investigate us and did so. If/when we are vindicated, they simply say the IC has shown there was no case to answer and that their robust investigation/enforcement measures have been proved to work and that no club is above the rules.

 

[Coatigan]

View attachment 128245

There is time to get the carabao cup up there before the verdict.

 

[Elbow beards]

Exactly, there's so much pressure to find us guilty whether we are guilty or not.

If it was an actual legitimate judge I'd be much more confident but this so called independent commission doesn't fill me with confidence.

Do you seriously believe a KC would fudge evidence to find us guilty due to media pressure? City would ask for the evidence and his reputation would be in tatters. Not happening.

 

[Big Joe Corrigan]

Will it?
From the PL perspective they believed they had grounds to investigate us and did so. If/when we are vindicated, they simply say the IC has shown there was no case to answer and that their robust investigation/enforcement measures have been proved to work and that no club is above the rules.

I can think of one club who seem to be above the rules.