PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

burning blue soul said:
In my experience this case will result in a fine for non cooperation.
It's the only way every side escapes without looking like a prick.
No other scenario will work.
City will be, in no doubt, pressing for an 'innocent on all counts' result.
But with the high profile of the league, the high profile of the case, the heavy hitters on all sides wanting to walk away with a victory, the public and media expectations, the only outcome that will be politically (governments, pl boards, and judiciary, alike) acceptable is this. They will want a no-score draw.
The league will eat itself if there is a guilty verdict, or a fully innocent one.
I firmly believe we are watching a charade play out to show the pl justice system working as it should.
It is important that the mechanics of society are shown to be working. If it is demonstrated to be fatally flawed folk will lose faith in it.
The non-cooperation result is the only way all sides can say they won.
Click to expand...
How does that work in practice though?
Did we not cooperate at all? If so, what’s to stop all this coming back again, once ‘new evidence’ is unearthed?
Did we cooperate eventually? In which case we’ve surely, cooperated?
If we produce new evidence that the panel says, ‘if you’d showed everyone this before, there’d have been no charges’, we would have committed the biggest own goal in history!

Not saying you’re wrong but I just can’t see how that can be the only outcome.
 
Father Paul said:
Not sure about that. Very few of the mob will be happy with a fine I would think, although I would settle for it now, if all the other charges were dropped and discredited.
Click to expand...
Although it is officially stated that no communications have been had at government level, I can assure you that there has.
All depends on if the yanks have put more pressure to secure their 'investments' than the UAE have.
But this will be a political manoeuvre and not a legal one.
All this tribunal bollocks is just that. In my humble one.
 
The Light Was Yellow Sir said:
How does that work in practice though?
Did we not cooperate at all? If so, what’s to stop all this coming back again, once ‘new evidence’ is unearthed?
Did we cooperate eventually? In which case we’ve surely, cooperated?
If we produce new evidence that the panel says, ‘if you’d showed everyone this before, there’d have been no charges’, we would have committed the biggest own goal in history!

Not saying you’re wrong but I just can’t see how that can be the only outcome.
Click to expand...
As I say, the decisions will have been politically made. This level of conflict in a worldwide entertainment behemoth brand is too much of a destabilising risk.
Even for the plaintive. A win for them is still going to be highly damaging. And these American investors are not usually interested in a long term ROI.
They (red top owners) and us, also don't know what City will do if the nuclear button is pressed.
Totally Innocent or filthy guilty don't work for any investor who wants to make money from the game.
 
burning blue soul said:
In my experience this case will result in a fine for non cooperation.
It's the only way every side escapes without looking like a prick.
No other scenario will work.
City will be, in no doubt, pressing for an 'innocent on all counts' result.
But with the high profile of the league, the high profile of the case, the heavy hitters on all sides wanting to walk away with a victory, the public and media expectations, the only outcome that will be politically (governments, pl boards, and judiciary, alike) acceptable is this. They will want a no-score draw.
The league will eat itself if there is a guilty verdict, or a fully innocent one.
I firmly believe we are watching a charade play out to show the pl justice system working as it should.
It is important that the mechanics of society are shown to be working. If it is demonstrated to be fatally flawed folk will lose faith in it.
The non-cooperation result is the only way all sides can say they won.
Click to expand...
If the PL don’t land any of the major allegations it will be a disaster for them. They have taken four years and accused all our senior people of false accounting. Non-co operation is not a win for them under any circumstances.
 
burning blue soul said:
Although it is officially stated that no communications have been had at government level, I can assure you that there has.
All depends on if the yanks have put more pressure to secure their 'investments' than the UAE have.
But this will be a political manoeuvre and not a legal one.
All this tribunal bollocks is just that. In my humble one.
Click to expand...
Of course it has been political. The current and previous Government know exactly what Masters and his pals have been up to. They also know that City are the only club supporting the new Regulator.
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
If the PL don’t land any of the major allegations it will be a disaster for them. They have taken four years and accused all our senior people of false accounting. Non-co operation is not a win for them under any circumstances.
Click to expand...

A failure to land the major charges will see the senior figures at the EPL out en masse. No way can they survive. They’ve staked everything.
 
The press often say we will be found guilty of non cooperation. As with all their reports, they are guessing. They just don't know. If we gave the PL everything they were entitled to receive in good time I cannot see the IC finding us guilty of non cooperation. City will have had advice about which requests to comply with. The press will keep banging this drum for clicks from the morons, but they are guessing.
 
A fine for not complying is nuts, if I didn't do the crime and answered no comment when questioned by the plot then found not guilty in court I wouldn't expect a fine for saying nothing.
For me it's either guilty or not, punish if there's wrong doing but if not let's get our club and players cleared.
 
burning blue soul said:
As I say, the decisions will have been politically made. This level of conflict in a worldwide entertainment behemoth brand is too much of a destabilising risk.
Even for the plaintive. A win for them is still going to be highly damaging. And these American investors are not usually interested in a long term ROI.
They (red top owners) and us, also don't know what City will do if the nuclear button is pressed.
Totally Innocent or filthy guilty don't work for any investor who wants to make money from the game.
Click to expand...

Go on I’ll humour you.

How would a win for the PL damage them?

And what would this “nuclear button” consist of?
 
Bez said:
The press often say we will be found guilty of non cooperation. As with all their reports, they are guessing. They just don't know. If we gave the PL everything they were entitled to receive in good time I cannot see the IC finding us guilty of non cooperation. City will have had advice about which requests to comply with. The press will keep banging this drum for clicks from the morons, but they are guessing.
Click to expand...

This non cooperation element baffles me.

If we have genuinely not provided such and such a document, or spreadsheet or witness statement, how would they be able to prove the alleged breach that relates to?
Remember the emphasis is on them to prove not us to disprove.

I get that an adverse inference could be drawn but that doesn’t necessarily amount to proof.

Also, would there be some “cut off point” for not cooperating on whatever issue? So for eg the PL say we need such and such a document by 1st May and we don’t provide it, but provide it a week later, would that still be non cooperation even though we have factually provided the document?

Would there be any criteria where not providing something is actually ok?
 
Regarding non-cooperation. Like everyone I’m just putting out my understanding of events. In particular with UEFA we were cooperating fully until everything we submitted ended up being leaked? Can’t see that applying to The Premier League. There’s documents you have to submit and we no doubt submitted them all. Additional info is surely by request.
 
halfcenturyup said:
I don't think they can prove that, but the club's defence won't just be looking at the P7 and P8 wording. They will have to show why the services were separate, fulfilled and perfectly normal from a personal and professional point of view. I am sure they can.
Click to expand...

No they won’t. The PL have to show the services outlined in the Al Jazira contract, were NOT separate, and were NOT perfectly normal.

They have to show, in other words, that the contract was a sham.

Have they asked Al Jazira? Have they even asked Mancini? You can’t prove a contract is a sham unless both parties intend it should not be binding.

I’m not aware they have evidence that either didn’t intend to be bound by those terms, let alone both.
 
BamberBridgeBlue said:
Regarding non-cooperation. Like everyone I’m just putting out my understanding of events. In particular with UEFA we were cooperating fully until everything we submitted ended up being leaked? Can’t see that applying to The Premier League. There’s documents you have to submit and we no doubt submitted them all. Additional info is surely by request.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that the PL regs were updated at some point to say they can ask for just about anything - I can't remember if the change was made during the period the charges relate to, or after it.

Testing the regs in court could be viewed as non-cooperation; arguing or flat out refusing could be viewed as non-cooperation. As we don't know what is entailed, the non-cooperation charges may just be add-ons to be assessed for how valid they are.

Until their validity is tested, they are just charges under the regs; not bringing them might make any future occurrence (against any club) more difficult to bring - it would certainly be incentive to not cooperate.

Just my understanding, and may be wrong.
 
Chris in London said:
No they won’t. The PL have to show the services outlined in the Al Jazira contract, were NOT separate, and were NOT perfectly normal.

They have to show, in other words, that the contract was a sham.

Have they asked Al Jazira? Have they even asked Mancini? You can’t prove a contract is a sham unless both parties intend it should not be binding.

I’m not aware they have evidence that either didn’t intend to be bound by those terms, let alone both.
Click to expand...
You do know who owns Al Jazira?
Only the Qaratris...
Not Abu Dhabi's greatest fans.
 
Chris in London said:
No they won’t. The PL have to show the services outlined in the Al Jazira contract, were NOT separate, and were NOT perfectly normal.

They have to show, in other words, that the contract was a sham.

Have they asked Al Jazira? Have they even asked Mancini? You can’t prove a contract is a sham unless both parties intend it should not be binding.

I’m not aware they have evidence that either didn’t intend to be bound by those terms, let alone both.
Click to expand...
This is why a large proportion of the 115 will just be thrown out.
No evidence, no follow-up to possible witnesses, just pure hope and innuendo and making 2+2=5
 
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