PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

manimanc said:
Masters is probably on a conference call right now with the red cartel owners asking them what he should do next.
Click to expand...
Probably tell him to suspend the action whilst they evaluate their position allowing another year of open season.
 
lancs blue said:
They haven't taken it on the chin, they've issued a statement whinging about the decision!
Click to expand...
Yes but my point is it could just be a front to demonstrate that “the panel” is independent so there’s no conspiracy theory when they find against us

Just a thought
 
hello said:
It certainly reads like the premier league press office are going against their own fucking rules in terms of acting in good faith towards a member club.
Click to expand...

The can’t act in good faith when they don’t even notify City they are charging them and then release a press release that incorrectly outlines the charges. Incompetency seems to run right through all departments in the PL, it’s simply not fit for purpose anymore.
 
Mancini Charges
A very interesting thread on @slbsn X feed, basically given the PL rules circa 2009 and the LCFC ruling yesterday the PL's chances of landing the Mancini charges are highly unlikely. However, once again, I'll ask if anyone can explain why are the Mancini charges not time barred. There was absolutely NOTHING criminal about the contracts I.e. to stop them being time barred. Is it possible they have already been resolved and thrown out. I know they could be classed as minor charges but if they were fasely raised against us it needs calling out. It adds weight to our arguments about vexatious litigation by commercial rivals.
 
CC1 said:
Yes but my point is it could just be a front to demonstrate that “the panel” is independent so there’s no conspiracy theory when they find against us

Just a thought
Click to expand...
That would mean they’d previously deliberately ambiguously worded the relevant rule to ensure that they lost a case a considerable time later (having anticipated that Leicester would breach that particular rule) in order that a determination could be made against them to bolster their prospects against City, the hearing for which just happened to be heard shortly after that determination.

Or alternatively the rule could have been poorly worded because the cunts don’t know what they’re doing.
 
LeonardoDaVnci said:
Mancini Charges
A very interesting thread on @slbsn X feed, basically given the PL rules circa 2009 and the LCFC ruling yesterday the PL's chances of landing the Mancini charges are highly unlikely. However, once again, I'll ask if anyone can explain why are the Mancini charges not time barred. There was absolutely NOTHING criminal about the contracts I.e. to stop them being time barred. Is it possible they have already been resolved and thrown out. I know they could be classed as minor charges but if they were fasely raised against us it needs calling out. It adds weight to our arguments about vexatious litigation by commercial rivals.
Click to expand...
I suspect that City don't want them thrown out due to time barring issues anyway (I certainly don't). We want them to say they were wrong and we did everything correctly by the rules at that time. No more "escaped on a technical issue" bollocks.
 
LeonardoDaVnci said:
Mancini Charges
A very interesting thread on @slbsn X feed, basically given the PL rules circa 2009 and the LCFC ruling yesterday the PL's chances of landing the Mancini charges are highly unlikely. However, once again, I'll ask if anyone can explain why are the Mancini charges not time barred. There was absolutely NOTHING criminal about the contracts I.e. to stop them being time barred. Is it possible they have already been resolved and thrown out. I know they could be classed as minor charges but if they were fasely raised against us it needs calling out. It adds weight to our arguments about vexatious litigation by commercial rivals.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't they have to review them first to see if there was criminality, before ruling they were time barred?
 
Centurions said:
Covid exemptions. They were going to announce a £50m allowance for stadium expansion investigations but apparently that one's already been taken.
Click to expand...

In all seriousness, i suspect just like the dippers this will be the next concession they get, i did wonder why the talk of stadium redevelopment was being discussed in the media. Well now everyone is aware of the intention i can see them wanting the same
 
feedmpenzaandhewillscore said:
The can’t act in good faith when they don’t even notify City they are charging them and then release a press release that incorrectly outlines the charges. Incompetency seems to run right through all departments in the PL, it’s simply not fit for purpose anymore.
Click to expand...

It's not incompetence ...................... but corrupt practice.
 
Oldham Exile said:
You are in (sort of) the same place as me

In recent weeks I have raised concerns several times about the potential for the IC members 'supporting the position of their paymasters' - this because the only real evidence that we have previously had to judge that risk was the fella that voted against us at CAS - against all the (NO) evidence.

Well - I do not take much comfort in this regard from this LCFC appeal. It does mean that the original IC did find for the PL - despite this (rather obvious) major issue.

@halfcenturyup

Absolutely not pulling you up - you are one of the major contributors to this thread and I take a lot of information and confidence from your posts -, but, you replied on my concerns.........

"The confidence you should have is from the legal people on here saying they themselves have confidence in the process, having reviewed all these previous PL verdicts and from their professional knowledge and experience.

I don't know what more can be said to help. The legal guys on here, who know what they are talking about, say they have confidence in the process. That's good enough for me."

We now have an example of an IC finding for the PL despite a 'glaring error' - and Stefan has said today not to take much comfort from this LCFC appeal as there are limited routes for an appeal to be lodged.

I am reserving my right to be concerned -;)
Click to expand...

You are very kind, but I know fuck all about the legal complexities so you would be right to be concerned if that is in your nature. I can only talk about any legal issue because I listen to what our legal people here are saying, and try to firstly understand it and then absorb it.

I will send you a dm with something I have written on independence of the panel. I write this stuff to get my own mind straight more than anything, so maybe it will help you, maybe not. I may put the whole thing on a sub-stack or I may not, but have a read of this section.

But I really wouldn't worry about the panel. In all cases so far they seem to have come to the right conclusion, at the end if not at the beginning. I am sure the club's legal team will keep them on the straight and narrow.

Btw, this is the rule on appeals to an appeals panel:

1000000723.png

I don't think SB was saying there were limited avenues to an appeals panel but that it would be more difficult to have a matter of fact overturned than a matter of legal interpretation. I am sure we have lots of expensive lawyers looking at stuff like that.

Anyway, what do I know :)
 
abu13 said:
In all seriousness, i suspect just like the dippers this will be the next concession they get, i did wonder why the talk of stadium redevelopment was being discussed in the media. Well now everyone is aware of the intention i can see them wanting the same
Click to expand...

£50m tunnel renovation at the swamp……. Honest Scruffy Jim
 
Centurions said:
Covid exemptions. They were going to announce a £50m allowance for stadium expansion investigations but apparently that one's already been taken.
Click to expand...
Does that exemptions apply to all clubs or exclusive for rags?
 
LeonardoDaVnci said:
Mancini Charges
A very interesting thread on @slbsn X feed, basically given the PL rules circa 2009 and the LCFC ruling yesterday the PL's chances of landing the Mancini charges are highly unlikely. However, once again, I'll ask if anyone can explain why are the Mancini charges not time barred. There was absolutely NOTHING criminal about the contracts I.e. to stop them being time barred. Is it possible they have already been resolved and thrown out. I know they could be classed as minor charges but if they were fasely raised against us it needs calling out. It adds weight to our arguments about vexatious litigation by commercial rivals.
Click to expand...

Mancini will be time limited. I don't see how you can knowingly conceal something if you weren't doing anything wrong.

All imho of course.

Edit: But you have to go through all your defences to show that you weren't doing anything wrong, so that you couldn't have knowingly concealed it before the issue of time limitation can be settled. Different to CAS where time-barring was settled on everything up front because it was a strict time barring of 5 years in all cases.

I think :)
 
Bloominmarvellous said:
From my understanding all clubs agreed to covid losses and the losses made by each club due to covid would have had to be evidenced to the PL.
Click to expand...

Really ?

Not sure that the PL/rag alliance is as overt as that.

Seems that rags and dippers may possibly enjoy a more favourable relationship than lesser clubs :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: ufo
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