PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[hello]

Is it possible his background as an academic rather than business is why UEFA selected him?

So because he was a skint academic (That's what they tell us anyhow) He was always going to side with the organisation paying him a fucking fortune.

 

[Paladin]

That was the panel member chosen by UEFA so not too much of a surprise there.

I realised that, but you have to question the integrity of the panelist, if they just vote according to their sponsor's wishes, rather than according to the evidence.

 

[halfcenturyup]

I'd defer to the opinion of our resident legal eagles on this (preferably after they've sobered up following a morning in the small claims court) but if an email said something like "As discussed, I recorded that £50m ADUG cash as commercial revenue, rather than the equity investment it should have been" then I suspect the onus would be very much on us to prove we did nothing wrong.

Good points, well made.

 

[mancboy]

I'd defer to the opinion of our resident legal eagles on this (preferably after they've sobered up following a morning in the small claims court) but if an email said something like "As discussed, I recorded that £50m ADUG cash as commercial revenue, rather than the equity investment it should have been" then I suspect the onus would be very much on us to prove we did nothing wrong.

The only problem there is that given how the emails were obtained it would be almost impossible to ascertain that the emails were the original emails and not doctored in any way, so even with the metadata of the emails it would be extremely hard to present them and only them of evidence of wrongdoing you would basically have to have video footage of someone typing the email with a copy of the days paper next to him to confirm that those emails had not been doctored in anyway.

 

[foggy1974]

Back to sports washing :)

And human rights

 

[SWP's back]

When it comes to broadcasters and their advertisers milking and exploiting the masses of unthinking, herd following united "fans" particularly throughout SE Asia then I'm afraid City are still virtually a non-entity and irrelevance in commercial terms despite the trajectories the two clubs have taken in the last decade.

A lot of it is quite simply due to the colour of their shirts... red is considered a lucky colour throughout much of that part of the world and the largely uneducated and superstitious folks there will do anything to associate themselves with the colour red, including supporting who ever happens to be the most famous football team that plays in red which still happens to be united despite 10 years of failure and underachievement.

I live in SE Asia and United shirts are non existent. Unlike City shirts, it’s not 2003 anymore.

 

[Lord Blue]

The only problem there is that given how the emails were obtained it would be almost impossible to ascertain that the emails were the original emails and not doctored in any way, so even with the metadata of the emails it would be extremely hard to present them and only them of evidence of wrongdoing you would basically have to have video footage of someone typing the email with a copy of the days paper next to him to confirm that those emails had not been doctored in anyway.

Did CAS not state that the "veracity" of the emails was not in question?

I thought that the originals had been viewed by CAS and that the edited version was essentially truthful. I thought City accepted that at CAS?

I thought also that the emails were said not to be enough on their own.

My thought about that is that the point of editing the emails was to give the impression of wrongdoing as separately they were less sensational. Just my opinion though.

 

[Manc in London]

If the emails say "we did x" but if the books and records show that didn't happen then I would have thought that would not necessarily establish guilt. I would think that City and their legal team would explain it away as a misunderstanding / misinterpretation.

 

[Scoobz3]

The only problem there is that given how the emails were obtained it would be almost impossible to ascertain that the emails were the original emails and not doctored in any way, so even with the metadata of the emails it would be extremely hard to present them and only them of evidence of wrongdoing you would basically have to have video footage of someone typing the email with a copy of the days paper next to him to confirm that those emails had not been doctored in anyway.

or just compare the emails in question to all the emails the Premier league made City supply them with, presumably they would match if they have not been tampered with ;;;;

 

[Norbiton]

And human rights

Funny how little the human rights issue gets mentioned any more in the media or social media, it's all about 115 and nothing else. Almost as though those talking about human rights abuses in the Middle East weren't very interested in those issues at all except as a kneejerk criticism of a football team they didn't support.

 

[norman]

The Law Society Gazette

Welcome to The Law Society Gazette - publication of record to solicitors in England and Wales since 1903

www.lawgazette.co.uk

Extract from an article in the Law Society Gazette which I hope (I’m an FOC) should be accessible via the link above for anyone interested.
“The sports silk who led Leicester City’s successful challenge against football’s Premier League over the club’s finances has voiced concern that the league criticised its own decision-making panel of eminent lawyers after losing the case. Nick De Marco KC of Blackstone Chambers has also warned sports watchdogs not to ‘make up the rules as they go along’, calling for more ‘clarity and certainty’ in the drafting of regulations”

 

[jacko74]

I live in SE Asia and United shirts are non existent. Unlike City shirts, it’s not 2003 anymore.

Well the print media, the broadcasters and their associated advertisers don't seem to have figured out that's now the case and are all still desperate for the rags to remain relevant.

 

[Brightwell Bros.]

Kinda dilutes the whole "sportswashing" accusation, doesn't it?

I've said for years there's probably many legitimate arguments for criticizing ownership but the idea that they're here to launder their reputation is so silly. They're here to diversify from oil and make money. If I gave you £100bn to spend on investments that would come good in 50-100 years you'd invest in tech, biomedicine, green tech, sport and entertainment, and property. Guess what they're investing in.

 

[Brightwell Bros.]

Did CAS not state that the "veracity" of the emails was not in question?

I thought that the originals had been viewed by CAS and that the edited version was essentially truthful. I thought City accepted that at CAS?

I thought also that the emails were said not to be enough on their own.

My thought about that is that the point of editing the emails was to give the impression of wrongdoing as separately they were less sensational. Just my opinion though.

Yes, City gave the emails and confirmed they were legit. The editing has always been overstated imo.

 

[foggy1974]

Funny how little the human rights issue gets mentioned any more in the media or social media, it's all about 115 and nothing else. Almost as though those talking about human rights abuses in the Middle East weren't very interested in those issues at all except as a kneejerk criticism of a football team they didn't support.

The rags & their hypocritical fans put paid to most of that when they wanted Qatari money

 

[ayrshire_blue]

I sent an email to my mate telling him I was going to bum Michelle Keegan in her city kit.

Must have happened.

Not to piss on an obvious joke on your part, but the emails in question state that we've already done X, not that we plan to do it.

Unless I'm badly misreading the situation which is possible, we will have to explain why those emails exist if we didn't actually do X. I can't think of a plausible explanation but I trust that we have one. If we don't provide an explanation, the balance of probabilities suggest we've done exactly as we've admitted to doing on the emails.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

The Law Society Gazette

Welcome to The Law Society Gazette - publication of record to solicitors in England and Wales since 1903

www.lawgazette.co.uk

Extract from an article in the Law Society Gazette which I hope (I’m an FOC) should be accessible via the link above for anyone interested.
“The sports silk who led Leicester City’s successful challenge against football’s Premier League over the club’s finances has voiced concern that the league criticised its own decision-making panel of eminent lawyers after losing the case. Nick De Marco KC of Blackstone Chambers has also warned sports watchdogs not to ‘make up the rules as they go along’, calling for more ‘clarity and certainty’ in the drafting of regulations”

That’s hilarious. It’s rare for any organisation to criticise its own legally appointed team in public. Utterly bizarre. It seems to confirm my long-held view that the simplest explanation for the whole saga could be just that Masters and his close circle of cronies are just incredibly stupid.

 

[eastmanc]

Not to piss on an obvious joke on your part, but the emails in question state that we've already done X, not that we plan to do it.

Unless I'm badly misreading the situation which is possible, we will have to explain why those emails exist if we didn't actually do X. I can't think of a plausible explanation but I trust that we have one. If we don't provide an explanation, the balance of probabilities suggest we've done exactly as we've admitted to doing on the emails.

We provided one at CAS.

 

[M18CTID]

Not to piss on an obvious joke on your part, but the emails in question state that we've already done X, not that we plan to do it.

Unless I'm badly misreading the situation which is possible, we will have to explain why those emails exist if we didn't actually do X. I can't think of a plausible explanation but I trust that we have one. If we don't provide an explanation, the balance of probabilities suggest we've done exactly as we've admitted to doing on the emails.

I thought we explained all that at CAS? Well, certainly for the e-mails that were under scrutiny at CAS. They accepted our explanation, hence us winning the appeal.

The e-mails themselves can be interpreted a multitude of different ways. Sure, they can look bad if you interpret them a certain way, but there are plausible explanations that have already been put forward and accepted. In fact, it's utterly ludicrous and downright stupid to think that we'd have employed disguised owner funding to make up most of the Etihad deal because there literally was no need to ever do that as the perfectly legal route of using central funds was available to us, which is what we demonstrated at CAS.

 

[Sofiablu]

We provided one at CAS.

For those of us that can’t remember the details (and lots of other things these days!) can somebody explain in simple terms how we explained our way out of these “problem” emails. Ta.