PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

chaddblue said:
The telegraph are now saying we will be excluded from the domestic cups as well if found guilty. They're losing the plot
Click to expand...
It's the media lynch mob in full blood lust mode, and the punishments they will think up will get more and more bizarre as the week go by, City fans and staff having to take part in public reeducation camps? Pep put in stocks outside the town hall, KDB dragged naked around the streets of Liverpool ? It's going to get worse folks because this is the last chance of derailing the club it will never come again, and those behind it are using their client media to feed red meat to the masses
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
I'd say it was related to the more serious charge, as they'd presumably want to offer a 'discount' for early settlement. I'd also say that the PL, having handed this to their own Independent Commission, were unlikely to be doing something like this (assuming they did) unilaterally, without reference to Murray Rosen.
Click to expand...
agreed, the six point deduction would most likely be 12+pts if dished out at a hearing
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
I've had it on good authority that this happened (and I know who it came from). More recently I've been told (but I couldn't verify, so treat it with caution) that we were specifically offered a 6-point deduction and a large fine to settle pre-hearing. I don't know if the deduction would have applied last season or this. Obviously our answer to that offer was no. This echoes what happened with UEFA, who offered us a fine to settle, an offer we again rejected.

You can look at this as the PL believing their case wouldn't stand up at a hearing, or that it would and they felt a slightly more severe penalty would be in order (although they have no idea what the IC might do).

Clearly the media weren't told, or if they were, chose not to publicise it for whatever reason.
Click to expand...
It feels very much like both hadn't listened to Khaldoon when we took the 'pinch' and believed we'd settle again to make it go away
 
StillBluessinceHydeRoad said:
Many on here put this argument forward in the run up to CAS. But I don't think you were ever one of them kaz. What's changed?
Click to expand...
I never believed in the case against us by uefa, the prem however has spent a long time and come up with a lot of charges , most of them ridiculous, but in the hope something will stick . We also have the red shirt clubs and a few others applying pressure to them to find something , anything to say there you are they are cheats , they also want a huge points deduction and maybe drop us into the championship

I am not worried as such , i believe in the club, in khaldoon and soriano , if they find something to pin on us i will still be a blue , like many of us foc's i will still be amazed at journey we have had
 
ayrshire_blue said:
Excuse my ignorance PB, but a large fine and a 6 point deduction on the face of it, to me, suggests the PL wished us to concede on one or some of the far less serious charges?

If they felt they had us for conspiracy/cheating over a course of a decade, but wished to settle out of the hearing, a 6 point and huge fine sounds ridiculously low.

I hope your information is right, as that (again, on the face of it to a lay person) seems to bode well for us on the serious stuff in the hearing.

Is that a reasonable take?
Click to expand...
Why offer a settlement on a "less serious charge" and then continue to charge City on the more serious ones?

What would be the point of settling in that instance? They more than likely offered the "low" settlement as a way of the PL saving face and ending the whole farce they'd forced upon themselves, thinking City were soft targets and would happily accept just to get it over with.

But our owners have integrity and this is their reputation being slandered, so no surprise we said no to any "offer" they proposed. That makes more sense to me.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
Clearly the media weren't told, or if they were, chose not to publicise it for whatever reason.
Click to expand...
Because any offer to settle will have been without prejudice, which still applies in this setting as an operation of of law, as it does in other tribunals. As such it’s not for public disclosure at this stage, and possibly not at any point, although there are certain potential gateways that open up as the litigation progresses.
 
mcfcphil said:
@gordondaviesmoustache
Completely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things but.. when I see lawyers using a trolley to wheel massive boxes of legal papers into the courtroom I always wonder why they don’t save themselves the bother and use digital versions.

Presumably would also be much easier to use within proceedings as well if you can just open a file instead of sifting through thousands of docs.

Maybe it’s a bit grandstanding on the courtroom precinct.
Click to expand...

That’s the invoice.
 
Ducado said:
It's the media lynch mob in full blood lust mode, and the punishments they will think up will get more and more bizarre as the week go by, City fans and staff having to take part in public reeducation camps? Pep put in stocks outside the town hall, KDB dragged naked around the streets of Liverpool ? It's going to get worse folks because this is the last chance of derailing the club it will never come again, and those behind it are using their client media to feed red meat to the masses
Click to expand...
Premier league will impose our new club colours and kit designIMG_3095.jpeg
 
Stoned Rose said:
This case is about us and our alleged actions. That’s it.

We will not be using whataboutery in our defence.
Click to expand...
Are you sure? One tactic is to muddy the waters. Questions to the P.L. why the Scousers were not charged for hacking, the letter to EUFA on Arsenal letter headed paper and the scum being allowed millions in allowances spring to mind. Planting a seed that there is bias and potentially racism and the PL and it's members not acting in good faith won't do us any harm.Granted that the hearing should be about the evidence only. There are loads of instances of bad P.R. stating we are obviously guilty. It would be great if we could ask the questions and inadvertently leak their answers to the press.
 
marco said:
agreed, the six point deduction would most likely be 12+pts if dished out at a hearing
Click to expand...
I guess it's possible that the 3-man commission had looked at the evidence and come back with the view that it would be a 10 or even 12-point deduction based on the evidence they'd seen so far. And that to save the huge expense of a 3-month hearing, and probably an appeal, the PL were prepared to settle for less, in order to avoid the expense.

It's also possible that they were told that it was the IC's view that it was only 50/50 that they'd land the main allegations, and they wanted to try to get a result without that uncertainty, and one that satisfied the cartel as well.

It could also be possible that they did this entirely off their own bat, having discussed with the cartel what they'd consider the minimum adequate outcome.

We don't know, and we'll only know when the IC makes its findings known.
 
on the basis of the 6 point deduction and fine, was this to settle all charges and end the case or would have other charges remaind to be heard at the hearing, if its the first then we realy have nothing to worry about here
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
I've had it on good authority that this happened (and I know who it came from). More recently I've been told (but I couldn't verify, so treat it with caution) that we were specifically offered a 6-point deduction and a large fine to settle pre-hearing. I don't know if the deduction would have applied last season or this. Obviously our answer to that offer was no. This echoes what happened with UEFA, who offered us a fine to settle, an offer we again rejected.

You can look at this as the PL believing their case wouldn't stand up at a hearing, or that it would and they felt a slightly more severe penalty would be in order (although they have no idea what the IC might do).

Clearly the media weren't told, or if they were, chose not to publicise it for whatever reason.
Click to expand...
While i find this hard to believe it is possible. The Leicester appeal showed us that an independent PL panel, con investigate, charge, find guilty and punish, without having all the facts correct, just like UEFA with both losing on appeal, it puts a huge amount of pressure on our panel to accept only fact.
 
Invisible Man's Bandage said:
The Telegraph article is saying that we would be looking at being thrown out of the CL, Club World Cup as well as the domestic cups.

Blimey
Click to expand...

It's absolutely bollocks dressed up as an exclusive. Firstly, for the FA Cup the rule apparently is "Where a club has been admitted to participate in the competition but is then removed from the league in which it competes (or its league fixtures are suspended), the Professional Game Board [PGB] may remove the club from the competition.” It's unlikely that would happen and even if it did, participation "may" be withdrawn. Then for the Carabao, participation is “each member from time to time of the league and each member from time to time of the Premier League”. The club would either be in one or the other, presumably. And for CL and CWC they have no idea what the rules are

Convincing.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
I've had it on good authority that this happened (and I know who it came from). More recently I've been told (but I couldn't verify, so treat it with caution) that we were specifically offered a 6-point deduction and a large fine to settle pre-hearing. I don't know if the deduction would have applied last season or this. Obviously our answer to that offer was no. This echoes what happened with UEFA, who offered us a fine to settle, an offer we again rejected.

You can look at this as the PL believing their case wouldn't stand up at a hearing, or that it would and they felt a slightly more severe penalty would be in order (although they have no idea what the IC might do).

Clearly the media weren't told, or if they were, chose not to publicise it for whatever reason.
Click to expand...

The media know.
 
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