PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

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...
That pesky fuckin’ evidence again!
 
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...
As you well know, you don't use a witness who can harm your case more than they can help it. I can't believe they expect to land the Mancini-related charges.

Given the outcome at CAS, I also can't believe they expect they can land the sponsorship charges. If I'm right that they knew about Fordham back in 2015, and neither UEFA nor the PL did anything at the time or subsequently, then they surely can't be confident they can land that either. So why do this?

We've speculated that it's just to damage our reputation, which looks more and more like a rational explanation, plus they might hope to get us on the non-cooperation allegations. Given the cost of this to the PL, if I was one of the non-cartel member clubs of the PL, I'd be asking some very searching questions once this is over.
 
Last edited:
Prestwich_Blue said:
As you well know, you don't use a witness who can harm your case more than they can help it. I can't believe they expect to land the Mancini-related charges.

Given the outcome at CAS, I can't believe they expect they can land the sponsorship charges. If I'm right that they knew about Fordham back in 2015, and neither UEFA nor the PL did anything at the time or subsequently, then they surely can't be confident they can land that either. So why do this?

We've speculated that it's just to damage our reputation, which looks more and more like a rational explanation, plus they might hope to get us on the non-cooperation allegations. Given the cost of this to the PL, if I was one of the non-cartel member clubs of the PL, I'd be asking some very searching questions once this is over.
Click to expand...
City said in the official statement that they have "Comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence". I have always wondered what that might be..? Is it Audit report, Bank transaction details, Full chain of email conversations or something else...?

What's your thought on that, PB....?
 
Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese said:
I think if we 'win' (depending on what that looks like) it could end the PL. We know that the media spin which is becoming ever more intense is that we will either be found guilty, or found guilty and get away with it on some technicality. I don't think I've seen any serious reporting that accepts or suggest we may be innocent. I think anything but a total guilty verdict will give the American owned clubs the excuse to flounce off to a super league. The new CL format is another tentative step in that direction. Obviously if we are found guilty, stripped of points/titles and all the other stuff of rag/dipper wet dreams we'll be heavily punished and the league can go back to their 1990s status quo.
Click to expand...
Overthinking
 
Regarding Leicester and the failed PSR case in which it was said that the wording was not fit for purpose, no-one needs an education beyond grammar school level to understand that the incorrect use of punctuation marks, or lack of them, can make a vast difference in what a sentence is meant to be implying. What a turn up that would be if our case was dropped for the same reason. Our understanding of the rules versus the EPLs own version.
 
Toranaga sama said:
City said in the official statement that they have "Comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence". I have always wondered what that might be..? Is it Audit report, Bank transaction details, Full chain of email conversations or something else...?

What's your thought on that, PB....?
Click to expand...
Wel we had evidence that overturned the 2-season CL ban at CAS, so I'd guess that's part of it. I'd assume we have evidence that Mancini fulfilled his obligation to Al Jazira.

And maybe we have evidence about the Fordham stuff, presumably its legitimacy and maybe even that UEFA and the PL had already agreed it wasn't a problem. Who knows? We'll find out in a few months.
 
Cobwebcat said:
If you got £100 every time you said “banana” and £10 every time you said “orange” you would say banana all the time.

This is social media and increasing regular media.

That’s all it is. You won’t change it so try not to keep saying “OMG look what they have said now” that’s what they want. Look at the length of this thread for your answer.

Footy is very tribal and rival fans are desperate to see us found guilty. There are more rival fans than City fans. The media write what is popular not what is true. You must know this by now, why get triggered? All it does is feed them.

Do you think, even if we had never been charged, that rival fans would not bait us? We are the number one target because we win everything. It’s off the scale because we are accused of cheating. If Forest were the best team England had ever seen, they would be baited. It comes with the territory.

This is the World we live in and it’s shit.

It’s all bananas. It’s not meant to be fair any more.

Enjoy the verdict.
Click to expand...
Your banana and orange quote hits the nail on the head
 
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