PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Milesvk said:
Unless I have missed it, wasn't all this detail suppose to come out in the public domain with Etihad floating on the New York stock exchange.
Therefore making it more impossible for the prem league to prove because the numbers will be there in black and white.
Click to expand...
But they haven’t floated on the NYSE have they…..unless I missed it. There was a rumour about 6 months that they were going to, but then zilch
 
KS55 said:
The PL are suing City for breach of contract, albeit it is being settled by arbitration. If the PL decline to offer evidence of a particular breach, normally that would be the end of it. The panel would not waste time on an item which was no longer in contention. I suppose City could ask the panel for a formal verdict of not proven.
Click to expand...
I think I would prefer the charges not to even be mentioned. If, say, the verdict ends up being on 65 charges, it will highlight that the original rushed announcement was nothing more than a vindictive publicity stunt.
 
Exeter Blue I am here said:
But they haven’t floated on the NYSE have they…..unless I missed it. There was a rumour about 6 months that they were going to, but then zilch
Click to expand...
No idea mate, I just heard that a while back then zilch. Just put it out there for someone more in the know to confirm if it did or didn't happen.
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
Every paragraph of Roan’s article is twisted and distorted. Subtle changes. He refers to the CAS judgement statement using the phrase: “No conclusive evidence” The actual phrase used repeatedly by CAS was: “No evidence.” Fundamentally dishonest reporting.
Click to expand...

Make a complaint using this form - it only takes a minute to complete

Make A Complaint | Contact the BBC

www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk

If enough people do it he’ll have to change the article. Which will piss him off and make him think twice when using the phrase again.

What’s the URL of the article?

Be polite in your complaint
 
M18CTID said:
I can't remember the wording of the Pearce e-mail that ever so conveniently surfaced a couple of weeks or so after the CAS verdict didn't go the way that Der Spiegel wanted, but I always thought this question of "arranging payments on behalf of ADUG" was specifically about disguised equity funding and not to do with any other payments he may or may not have arranged.
Click to expand...
The accusations were that he arranged funding to Etihad.

But it doesn't matter who arranged it as long as it didn't come from ADUG. But even if it had come from ADUG (which it didn't) CAS determined that it was fair value in terms of the price paid and that Etihad received full consideration in terms of what they got out of it.
 
LeonardoDaVnci said:
For me 80-90% of the substance of this whole fiasco is the integrity of the Etihad Airways sponsorship. When the PL fail to illegitimise it, the level of possible sanctions is far less. Assuming their paid hacks have been breifed througout by the PL, to maintain the constant MSM hate campaign, my personal predictions are as follows.
The one "chink in the amor" re Ethihad is "Pearcegate". The Twat-Harris and Panja etc have repeatedly accused him of perjury at CAS in relation to the question "Did you ever arrange payments on behalf HHSM to disgusie equity funding as sponsorship by Etihad Airways". We were told in CAS2020 that Simon Pearce answered "Categorically Not", and that was the end of it.
Since CAS2020 the Twat et al have relied on a gross misrepresentation of an email where Pearce is arranging payments but NOT from HHSM. I look forward to this issue being resolved 100% by the IC. I anticipate it will take more than "Categorically Not" to do so. Once this accusation has been resolved for ever the likes of Twat-Harris and Panja will have to spend a few more years of their lives scrutinising legacy emails in desperation.
Click to expand...

A chink in the amor sounds like some Korean romantic drama. Racist. Sorry.

But I wouldn't worry too much about Pearce's testimony at CAS. The PL isn't going to build a case around semantics of the word "arrange". They may try to use it to discredit the other witness statements but I am sure Pearce, and his legal advisors, are more than capable of explaining what he meant in each occasion, and the sheer weight of witness testimony won't be affected by such things, imho. A bit of a red herring, I think.
 
mancboy said:
i think someone on here said yesterday that a large majority of the charges relate to us not filing accounts at the end of each season which is categorically untrue as we wouldnt be able to compete without them being filed so they will automatically be thrown out because their is nothing in the rules about the accounts being accurate.
Click to expand...

Not so, imo. The combination of the filing requirement with the acting in bad faith allegation allows them, I think, to allege that filing accounts with an audit report the board knew to be materially wrong in respect of sponsorship income, gave the club a sporting advantage. Makes sense to me, even though I doubt very much the club did that, or that the PL could prove it even if they did.
 
Most City fans understand what transpired with UEFA and the CAS result. In terms of CAS the right outcome was reached.

The panel that will sit the PL charges is the same in terms of numbers.

My only concern (and it is a very real concern) is that despite what appears to be irrefutable evidence presented at CAS, the panel/judges only found in favour of City 2 to 1.

That would suggest that the evidence presented was not ‘irrefutable’ at all. For the conspiracy theorists it might also suggest that the UEFA selected judge was always going to rule in favour of UEFA regardless.

I just find it hard to understand how for 2 judges there was ‘no evidence’ presented but for another there was.

It just goes to show how much of a knife edge decisions in a tribunal can be. You just never know do you.

Regardless of the outcome, I lived the glory and nothing will take this away.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Can we at least agree now that the appeals process is:

Disciplinary panel > Appeals board > Arbitration tribunal > Courts.

At each stage the grounds to appeal to the next step are reduced:

Appeals boards have to be set up whatever the appeal, but difficult (not impossible) to overturn a finding of fact. City likely to appeal against any sanction if one is imposed, I would imagine. Why not? Will be interesting to see if the PL appeals if City are successful and in what areas.

Arbitration tribunal has limited jurisdictional grounds so may refuse a tribunal hearing, but I am sure expensive lawyers can work something out.

A high court appeal has very limited grounds under English law and the PL rules, which makes it virtually (but not completely) impossible.

And, as we all know, there is no possibility of an appeal to CAS in the PL rules.

I think that is it. More or less.

** Waits to be blasted **
Click to expand...
May be totally wrong but wouldn't there be a route to CAS through the FA as the governing body in UK?
 
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