PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

The 6 point offer completely bamboozles me too, that's if there's any truth in it whatsoever. I can't comprehend why we'd go from chat about expulsion, titles being stripped, all the players and staff having to be sold and all the rest of it, to a sanction in a similar ballpark of Everton/Forest etc. Even if Masters and the PL along with their solicitors thought they had us bang to rights and wished us to settle prior to the hearing, there'd be a much more middle ground they'd have likely offered us.

They could offer us that and if we settled then we could plausibly still win the league.
 
supercity88 said:
As this is all playing out in public I would be staggered if the PL had offered a 6pt deduction. Everton were given 10pts initially, reduced to 6 on appeal. So immediately the public perception will be that City have "gotten away with it". I would have thought any offer would be around the 10pt mark so it's at least parallel to Everton's initial penalty, with no opportunity to appeal.

That's before you consider the public fallout from there being a settlement, which would have gone down like a lead balloon. The public would have seen that as incredibly dodgy and also believed that we bribed our way to get to that point.

But if it is true that some settlement approach was made, which I don't dispute and it's logical to reduce ongoing legal costs and speed this up, you can only conclude that City will win this. There's no way a Barrister of Pannick's stature turns down a settlement unless he's very confident the panel will clear us. You don't get to his level by making the wrong judgement call on a matter like that, and City wouldn't be so blind as to ignore his counsel on it.
Click to expand...
There's no way the PL would have offered us 6-10 points after being hit with over 115 charges. It surely would have had to have been significantly higher IMO.
 
Joe Donachie said:
I did jury service about 15 years ago now, It was actually a murder case I was on, and despite more than half of my fellow jury members believing there was a good chance the suspect was guilty we just did not have enough clear evidence to find them guilty,

Also in between breaks of being called back into the courtroom ( of which there was a lot as the judge loved to call for a break every 2 hours lol) I got speaking to people on jury service on another case and some of them had lost there jobs as they had been on this particular fraud case for over over 6 months,

Apparently fraud cases are the worse ones for coming to a conclusion as there is usually so many people involved, money trails, different accounts, different countries, various forms of communication, that in the end quite a few of the cases end up collapsing or the people involved being given a not guilty verdict

I always remember the judge and his closing speech to us jury members before we left for the deliberation room, he said ( you must be 100% in your decision, if there is any shed of doubt then you must return a not guilty verdict)

I wonder if this independent panel will work to the same remit, if not 100% in us being guilty then they have to drop all the charges against us,

I actually think that if we get cleared on the main 3 charges then the rest will collapse,
Click to expand...

Balance of probabilities.

So, it’s more likely something happened than it didn’t.

They’d have to provide very cogent reasoning for coming to such a conclusion.
 
wonderblue said:
There's no way the PL would have offered us 6-10 points after being hit with over 115 charges. It surely would have had to have been significantly higher IMO.
Click to expand...

Regardless of the specifics, the fact we didn't settle is hugely positive because it's evidence of our confidence in getting the charges thrown out.
 
ayrshire_blue said:
The 6 point offer completely bamboozles me too, that's if there's any truth in it whatsoever. I can't comprehend why we'd go from chat about expulsion, titles being stripped, all the players and staff having to be sold and all the rest of it, to a sanction in a similar ballpark of Everton/Forest etc. Even if Masters and the PL along with their solicitors thought they had us bang to rights and wished us to settle prior to the hearing, there'd be a much more middle ground they'd have likely offered us.

They could offer us that and if we settled then we could plausibly still win the league.
Click to expand...

Where’s this rumour come from?
 
supercity88 said:
As this is all playing out in public I would be staggered if the PL had offered a 6pt deduction. Everton were given 10pts initially, reduced to 6 on appeal. So immediately the public perception will be that City have "gotten away with it". I would have thought any offer would be around the 10pt mark so it's at least parallel to Everton's initial penalty, with no opportunity to appeal.

That's before you consider the public fallout from there being a settlement, which would have gone down like a lead balloon. The public would have seen that as incredibly dodgy and also believed that we bribed our way to get to that point.

But if it is true that some settlement approach was made, which I don't dispute and it's logical to reduce ongoing legal costs and speed this up, you can only conclude that City will win this. There's no way a Barrister of Pannick's stature turns down a settlement unless he's very confident the panel will clear us. You don't get to his level by making the wrong judgement call on a matter like that, and City wouldn't be so blind as to ignore his counsel on it.
Click to expand...

Just maybe some PL clubs who aren't so keen on seeing City stopped are baulking at the legal costs involved with the case if the PL don't land the most serious charges (together with any possible compensation from the APT case) and would have been encouraging the PL to settle for a big fine to reduce the impact on them ... 2 or 3 million isn't small change to a lot of clubs.
 
slbsn said:
An enquiry/select committee is not the same as this. Cross examination is very careful and planned rather than open ended and looking at seeing what the witness may come out with.
Click to expand...

That makes sense, the only requirement is to convince the panel that the allegations are false & leave the ill feeling at the door….
 
Joe Donachie said:
Also in between breaks of being called back into the courtroom ( of which there was a lot as the judge loved to call for a break every 2 hours lol) I got speaking to people on jury service on another case and some of them had lost there jobs as they had been on this particular fraud case for over over 6 months,
Click to expand...
Christ, that's crazy.
 
Joe Donachie said:
I did jury service about 15 years ago now, It was actually a murder case I was on, and despite more than half of my fellow jury members believing there was a good chance the suspect was guilty we just did not have enough clear evidence to find them guilty,

Also in between breaks of being called back into the courtroom ( of which there was a lot as the judge loved to call for a break every 2 hours lol) I got speaking to people on jury service on another case and some of them had lost there jobs as they had been on this particular fraud case for over over 6 months,

Apparently fraud cases are the worse ones for coming to a conclusion as there is usually so many people involved, money trails, different accounts, different countries, various forms of communication, that in the end quite a few of the cases end up collapsing or the people involved being given a not guilty verdict

I always remember the judge and his closing speech to us jury members before we left for the deliberation room, he said ( you must be 100% in your decision, if there is any shed of doubt then you must return a not guilty verdict)

I wonder if this independent panel will work to the same remit, if not 100% in us being guilty then they have to drop all the charges against us,

I actually think that if we get cleared on the main 3 charges then the rest will collapse,
Click to expand...
I “woodn’t” have disagreed with the judge…

Furthermore jobs are protected for jurors. Employers cannot dismiss you for being on a jury.
 
wonderblue said:
There's no way the PL would have offered us 6-10 points after being hit with over 115 charges. It surely would have had to have been significantly higher IMO.
Click to expand...
Let's remember that it's really only 3 substantive issues, not 115.

They'd be looking at a points deduction only if they felt our revenue was overstated, or expenses understated, to a point that we'd have failed PSR had they not been. That scenario would put us in the same sort of position as Everton.

The Mancini contract isn't enough to do that, plus there were no financial rules in place at the time as they were only introduced in 2013/14. I very much doubt Fordham would be enough to push us over as we're only talking about probably £13m a season.

So it's the Etihad contract, which we can only assume they're taking the same line as UEFA on, in that the majority wasn't paid by Etihad. But having looked at the figures, even if we're talking about Etihad etc being overstated by £60m a season, I'm dubious as to how we'd have failed the PL's profit and sustainability rules, which allow an aggregate loss of £105m over a 3-year period.

We reported an aggregate net profit of £7m over the first three years of the PL's rules. Adding back a minimum of £75m in allowable expenditure over those 3 years gives an adjusted net profit of over £80m meaning we'd have to have overstated our profit by £200m over those 3 years to have fallen foul of PSR enough to warrant a 6-point penalty.

Therefore you could potentially see the logic in the PL's offer of a 6-point deduction if they think we've significantly overstated sponsorship revenue. But we haven't done that, as CAS proved.
 
99% of all of these 115 charges by the Premier League are being played out in the media and targeting the public to Hate Manchester City, Talk about a Kangaroo court and having a panel of so-called unbias people to make a fair decision,

You Know what I don't care anymore, Please Manchester City blow open the can of worms, bring the system down and call it out for what it really is BENT TO THE CORE, from top to bottom on the field and off the field BENT,
YES Manchester City have been made to play by their rules and beaten them and now they have had enough.

So what if we are relegated and the manager and players leave, We will be free of all this bullshit everyweek
UNITED LIVERPOOL ARSENAL CHELSEA don't like a fair fight, Same on the Uefa front their so-called elite teams don't want a fair fight,

Manchester City fans used to hate the system and called it out, But then we wanted to take them on and got somebody to invest into the club and the Premier League, Then we signed the best players and managers, But the Premier League (United) thought we would go away after a couple of season and didn't think Manchester City could become a worldwide household name and even Bigger than United,

United want their ball back, But the noisy neighbours have it in our back garden and want to keep it for ourselves
 
Stoned Rose said:
Where’s this rumour come from?
Click to expand...

PB posted yesterday that he has heard from a good source that we were offered a settlement. He believes this part to be true.

But he also then stated he heard from someone else that we had been offered 6 points and a huge fine by the PL. The credibility of this second rumour/piece of information, PB believes, is more dubious.
 
IrishBlueSince92 said:
Its going to be a long 10 weeks reading some of these headlines on social media.

All regurgitated going round and round in a circle

Here are some of the punishments Man City could face
Here are the 115 charges explained
City players agents exploring options in case of relegation
Click to expand...

Stop reading them then.
 
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