PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[LangleyBlue1970]

Cascarino is a know nowt ****
He doesn't even know his own nationality

He’s probably right about that. If the PL have nothing on us and have gone through all this, heads will indeed roll. Lots of them.

 

[hammocity]

It is a consequential fail. So the rationale will be that if all of those early accounts are wrong, then all of the filings and licence applications are also wrong and we therefore breached a whole host of consequential rules. I would say it was completely unnecessary to charge those breaches (stat padding of a sort!) but they don't stand in isolation - win the substantive battle and they fall away, lose and they logically follow.

Cheers, a bit of clarity helps. I just didn't understand it, a kind of double jeopardy in my mind but as you say stat padding to help in sensationalising the charges.

 

[Asa's left peg]

You say that but I did a check and he doesn't appear to have had a case in court for almost a year (per https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/lucy_search_1.cgi?mask_path=/&show=200&method=boolean&query=(pannick)&highlight=1&sort=date)

This would, possibly, suggest he has largely been on MCFC retainer since the turn of the year...

Christ! He's like the Rocky Santa Cruz of the legal profession - not played for six months!

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

No, the time for talk is after we are found not to have breached their rules. You've seen how Pep's anodyne comments are twisted and scrutinised by a hostile media.

If we started putting any of our case into the open, it would be analysed and shredded and twisted by every rabid looney out there (Harris, Roan, Stone, I'm looking at you!) and just add to their infantile sense of self-importance. There is, literally, nothing that we can say before the judgement that will stop them. If the charges are disproven, the club, and Khaldoon in particular, will have plenty to say. As will the rest of us. Roll on that day.

Agreed. We could have spoken out more robustly after CAS but since then the strategy has been correct. Our opponents have been leaking information, making critical public comments, twisting and distorting the narrative. A central plank of our defence is our opponents have been acting in bad faith. We have taken the moral high ground.

 

[slbsn]

Cheers, a bit of clarity helps. I just didn't understand it, a kind of double jeopardy in my mind but as you say stat padding to help in sensationalising the charges.

City already failed in an argument re the 2014 settlement at CAS. I suspect this wouldn't be double jeopardy because in essence the allegation is City entered a settlement on a false premise - fraud. Again, the allegation if proven knocks out those arguments. If not proven, point is moot.

 

[slbsn]

Christ! He's like the Rocky Santa Cruz of the legal profession - not played for six months!

A lot of "behind closed doors" games in fairness.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Cheers, a bit of clarity helps. I just didn't understand it, a kind of double jeopardy in my mind but as you say stat padding to help in sensationalising the charges.

It's not stat padding, per se. The UEFA charges are a logical consequence of breaching the "filing true and fair accounts" rules. As are the FFP charges. The good thing about that, though, is that the consequential allegations all fall away if the PL can't prove the primary allegations, primarily on sponsorship, especially Etihad. Which I doubt they will be able to do.

 

[WRicko]

Now we're at the stage of the case starting, say we mounted evidence of criminality within the PL could the case be halted? In the same way if a whistleblower gave criminal evidence to the panel against us, would the case stop and be referred to police?
Or does the whole case take place, any criminality get identified, then a decision, then passed over to authority? Was thinking could we see arrests made during the 10 week window

What evidence ? What criminality ? And why would we wait if there was any ? Would we even want to argue that is it would blow the league up which we need for our revenue

 

[Coatigan]

You definitely have suggested no appeals possible. Amongst others I’ve suggested to you that there could be. But your view then was definitively not.

View attachment 131621

To be fair, following my exchange with Stefan yesterday, I read back through a whole lot of pages where the point (re)occurs, and I (having earlier argued otherwise) can see that he at no point claimed no appeals. In fact he argued the opposite, but specific to no appeals to higher courts, cas, when a few posters challenged it but under the presumption he meant no appeals.

But from then on it branches into people claiming no appeals, and later attributing that claim to Stefan, and people arguing it, as if they are arguing something he said. There are too many posts to requote, and it is a consequential perception gone wrong.

You can take the time to do it yourself, or you can trust that I did, you will likely end up with the same conclusion.

Stefan didn't claim no appeals at all, just the differnce between going to higher courts (and even that he said there was a possibility but a slim one if the procedure wasn't followed).

 

[Scott mcfc]

We will be fine,trust in club,theyve never failed us once,simple as that

 

[Pingu the Penguin]

To be fair, following my exchange with Stefan yesterday, I read back through a whole lot of pages where the point (re)occurs, and I (having earlier argued otherwise) can see that he at no point claimed no appeals. In fact he argued the opposite, but specific to no appeals to higher courts, cas, when a few posters challenged it but under the presumption he meant no appeals.

But from then on it branches into people claiming no appeals, and later attributing that claim to Stefan, and people arguing it, as if they are arguing something he said. There are too many posts to requote, and it is a consequential perception gone wrong.

You can take the time to do it yourself, or you can trust that I did, you will likely end up with the same conclusion.

Stefan didn't claim no appeals at all, just the differnce between going to higher courts (and even that he said there was a possibility but a slim one if the procedure wasn't followed).

Thanks mate ofc I’m going to trust you. And I agree with that conclusion. It’s the same one I came to too. I’m not saying the whole shebang gets re run in the high court

 

[dickie davies]

He’s probably right about that. If the PL have nothing on us and have gone through all this, heads will indeed roll. Lots of them.

Really!
How many lost their jobs at UEFA?

The PL will come out with a statement similar to the Leicester one, "We are disappointed that the panel didn't find in our favour and we still believe that the charges were the correct way to proceed. However, in this case, we will abide by the panel's ruling"

 

[Centurions]

Really!
How many lost their jobs at UEFA?

The PL will come out with a statement similar to the Leicester one, "We are disappointed that the panel didn't find in our favour and we still believe that the charges were the correct way to proceed. However, in this case, we will abide by the panel's ruling"

Two was it not, that we know of.

 

[slbsn]

Not doubling down I promise. In the exchange you go on to say that things won’t be going to the Supreme Court etc and you hope not as things will have gone horribly wrong for us if so. My point in that exchange (as now) is that a sports tribunal that dabbles in fraud and related law is doing so ultra vires and/or will cock it up. If it does we will have appeal rights.

Lets rewind "You definitely have suggested no appeals possible. Amongst others I’ve suggested to you that there could be. But your view then was definitively not."

So you do still say I said no appeals despite posting me saying there is a PL appeal?

So of course you are doubling down.

Of course, I go on from my point about the High Court to suggest a challenge to the Supreme Court is near impossible. Because it is and yes it would have meant things have gone horribly wrong for City - it would have meant:
a) City had been found in breach of substantive charges
b) City would have failed in the PL appeal
c) City would have failed under Rule X of the PL rules to challenge some part of the PL process
d) City would have failed in the HC to challenge the jurisdiction of the PL arbitration
e) City would have failed (if they got there) in the Court of Appeal to challenge the HC decision referred to in d)
f) City would have needed CoA leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.

As for your apparent new point (unrelated to me never saying no appeals) is that I am wrong to say there are no COURT appeals. And you do this with some creative argument that an arbitration panel could never assess civil fraud and therefore, all of the Club's agreement with the Premier League is unenforceable.

The problem with this is that the Club aren't arguing it themselves. They have clearly accepted the PLs jurisdiction because a hearing on those points commences on Monday (allegedly). So not only are those arguments likely hopeless, City's window for running them has gone.

So lets be clear - I have never said no appeals but I have said the path to the Courts is very difficult and would have meant a very bad outcome at the IC/Appeal. I also do not see a route to the Courts to hear the substantive allegations - the Courts will be asked only to consider the rules of the Premier League in the highly unlikely scenario you suggest.

Annoyed with myself for even replying but this should clear up the nonsense in your original post and give people some colour on a potentially relevant worst case.

 

[slbsn]

It's not stat padding, per se. The UEFA charges are a logical consequence of breaching the "filing true and fair accounts" rules. As are the FFP charges. The good thing about that, though, is that the consequential allegations all fall away if the PL can't prove the primary allegations, primarily on sponsorship, especially Etihad. Which I doubt they will be able to do.

But they are truly irrelevant - who cares in the context of a finding of 10 years of false accounts if we breached a UEFA licence application

 

[slbsn]

To be fair, following my exchange with Stefan yesterday, I read back through a whole lot of pages where the point (re)occurs, and I (having earlier argued otherwise) can see that he at no point claimed no appeals. In fact he argued the opposite, but specific to no appeals to higher courts, cas, when a few posters challenged it but under the presumption he meant no appeals.

But from then on it branches into people claiming no appeals, and later attributing that claim to Stefan, and people arguing it, as if they are arguing something he said. There are too many posts to requote, and it is a consequential perception gone wrong.

You can take the time to do it yourself, or you can trust that I did, you will likely end up with the same conclusion.

Stefan didn't claim no appeals at all, just the differnce between going to higher courts (and even that he said there was a possibility but a slim one if the procedure wasn't followed).

Thanks for clarifying that.

 

[Pingu the Penguin]

Lets rewind "You definitely have suggested no appeals possible. Amongst others I’ve suggested to you that there could be. But your view then was definitively not."

So you do still say I said no appeals despite posting me saying there is a PL appeal?

So of course you are doubling down.

Of course, I go on from my point about the High Court to suggest a challenge to the Supreme Court is near impossible. Because it is and yes it would have meant things have gone horribly wrong for City - it would have meant:
a) City had been found in breach of substantive charges
b) City would have failed in the PL appeal
c) City would have failed under Rule X of the PL rules to challenge some part of the PL process
d) City would have failed in the HC to challenge the jurisdiction of the PL arbitration
e) City would have failed (if they got there) in the Court of Appeal to challenge the HC decision referred to in d)
f) City would have needed CoA leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.

As for your apparent new point (unrelated to me never saying no appeals) is that I am wrong to say there are no COURT appeals. And you do this with some creative argument that an arbitration panel could never assess civil fraud and therefore, all of the Club's agreement with the Premier League is unenforceable.

The problem with this is that the Club aren't arguing it themselves. They have clearly accepted the PLs jurisdiction because a hearing on those points commences on Monday (allegedly). So not only are those arguments likely hopeless, City's window for running them has gone.

So lets be clear - I have never said no appeals but I have said the path to the Courts is very difficult and would have meant a very bad outcome at the IC/Appeal. I also do not see a route to the Courts to hear the substantive allegations - the Courts will be asked only to consider the rules of the Premier League in the highly unlikely scenario you suggest.

Annoyed with myself for even replying but this should clear up the nonsense in your original post and give people some colour on a potentially relevant worst case.

Thanks I appreciate the time you took in replying and happy to accept the above and what @Coatigan has said along same lines. Memories fade and I’m always happy to admit when I’m wrong.

I’m sorry your feel attacked or otherwise. Not my intention

 

[malg]

Why the fuck does someone from Spain deserve any space on the BBC, especially with Barcelona being run so badly and Real being basically state funded (well, a few years back with the corruption around the ?training ground) - why aren't the BBC calling him out?

 

[Gesario]

We would never win any PR war. We have literally zero publications, online media, journos or reporters willing to see our side of the argument - so trying to be more public would probably have backfired.

What would be the point of repeating ‘irrefutable evidence’ every few weeks.

The PL have remained fairly silent - the leaks and commentary has come from other clubs and officials and the usual suspects. Nothing can be done about that.

PR won’t sway the IC and it’s about to start so we all need to buckle up.

It’s the constant bombardment from the media filth for me Day after day and as already pointed out not one of them can change the narrative to ,What if City are clean ? I think they’re trying to get to Pep an the players all the time on purpose to try and derail them Not worked up to now though has it Cnuts Cmon City, cmon Pep

 

[Stoned Rose]

Do you not find it interesting, when people say they have noticed a small shift in perception towards the case, ffp/psr, the league etc. Do you not fond it interesting if you yourself notice this shift.

Many high profile court cases, often come with a bit of a PR war for the court of public opinion on the side.

Yet all this time since the first statement on thecharges, City as a club have said absolutely nothing. Not commented, not engaged, not refuted or challenging vsrious spurious claims and stories. Pep has said a thing or two when asked, but more in tone than words, which have always been ultimately 'wait and see'.

So the PL have a free run at a one sided PR war here, with the media and punters saying whatever they feel like.

Yet somehow, perception still seems to be shifting. The club are saying nothing, the media all follow a script, and the PL are still managing to come off looking worse than when this started. At the very least,the script has become tedious.

Maybe their silent approach isn't that bad after all.

Real gangsters always move in silence.