PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Blue Mist said:
@Chris in London Mancini has previously stated that he has had no contact with the PL.
This is what I find totally amazing. Whether it is a police investigation or an internal disciplinary inquiry at Tescos, you would always look to speak to the main witness. Obviously they could lie or even refuse to speak to you but, the witness just might give you all the evidence you require.
Click to expand...
I remember reading that.

I suppose they might have spoken to him about it since then…
 
cheekybids said:
If you are saying did we set a trap for the hunter knowing that if they proceed they’ll be trapped with the outcome decided by an independent commission, then yes I do.

If Masters had been able to consider the long term implications he wouldn’t have stage managed the attack, 115 & created a winner takes all. It came across as playing to the crowd (cartel) & now he’s fucked. The board should have controlled the situation though, they aren’t blameless so 4 years of investigations would have meant we were discussed & they should have had the foresight to see how it could play out.
Click to expand...
Going on the attack with the contrived 115 charges narrative was a huge blunder by the PL. The Comms has been a disaster. Every leak, every briefing, every dirty trick, has undermined their own case. It will not play well with the Panel just as it failed with the CAS judges. People don’t like being taken for idiots.
 
cheekybids said:
If you are saying did we set a trap for the hunter knowing that if they proceed they’ll be trapped with the outcome decided by an independent commission, then yes I do.

If Masters had been able to consider the long term implications he wouldn’t have stage managed the attack, 115 & created a winner takes all. It came across as playing to the crowd (cartel) & now he’s fucked. The board should have controlled the situation though, they aren’t blameless so 4 years of investigations would have meant we were discussed & they should have had the foresight to see how it could play out.
Click to expand...

Agree with all that.
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
The PL never had any intention of speaking to Mancini. The motive is damaging City’s reputation. They have no interest in justice. It has been a sham from the start.
Click to expand...
I totally agree and I thought I made that point, clearly I didn't. The reason it has taken so long and the reason it's 115/130 charges is to damage City.
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
Going on the attack with the contrived 115 charges narrative was a huge blunder by the PL. The Comms has been a disaster. Every leak, every briefing, every dirty trick, has undermined their own case. It will not play well with the Panel just as it failed with the CAS judges. People don’t like being taken for idiots.
Click to expand...

It has not only undermined their case, it has increased the jeopardy to them involved with a failure to prove the most serious allegations.

Stupid really and, as I maintain, clever of the club to manoeuvre them into this situation. Again. As at CAS.
 
Coatigan said:
2017 called, wants its post back.
Click to expand...
Agreed but that was down to our club and one worry I have in the back of my mind about this latest action and if our evidence is irrefutable.

But if we are found not guilty, the innuendo has to stop.
 
Keeper! said:
Agreed but that was down to our club and one worry I have in the back of my mind about this latest action and if our evidence is irrefutable.

But if we are found not guilty, the innuendo has to stop.
Click to expand...

Or what?

I think that is naive. It might slowly fizzle out to a lower level, but won't stop.

But if we are hopefully cleared, I won't really care about the innuendo. I already don’t.
 
Blue Mist said:
@Chris in London Mancini has previously stated that he has had no contact with the PL.
This is what I find totally amazing. Whether it is a police investigation or an internal disciplinary inquiry at Tescos, you would always look to speak to the main witness. Obviously they could lie or even refuse to speak to you but, the witness just might give you all the evidence you require.
If the PL had asked Mancini and he backed up everything they are alleging we would not now be pissing about it London.
It shows how amateurish this witch hunt really is and who is driving it.
For the record Mancini stated everything was above board and that he would attend any hearing to give evidence. Again this shows that the investigation was deliberately stretched out to cause maximum damage to City, it has no integrity.
Click to expand...
City should then call him as a witness for the defence job done
 
halfcenturyup said:
The PL may have asked the club for information from AJ and Mancini but City said they were unable to provide it. The PL can't just ask third parties for information directly, as I understand it, they can only ask City to provide it "when able to do so". Which is the biggest problem they have with all the allegations I think and, I would imagine, the main element of their non-cooperation allegation.
Click to expand...
Surely they can ask who they want they just cannot demand but even if the rules say you ask the club that doesn’t stop them asking the other people. And surly the rules cannot make the club provide stuff from third parties they have no control over

Do you think the rules prohibit them asking Mancini directly
 
cheekybids said:
I still don’t know why you can’t ask a 3rd party a question. They aren’t obligated to answer but I see no problem in asking Mancini if he’d be happy to explain what his consultancy role was in the UAE. If he says no it’s a different matter but not approach is wrong.
Click to expand...

These are the latest rules around power of inquiry and provision of information:
1000000796.png
1000000798.png

And the definitions of Manager / Official, just for the record:
1000000800.png
1000000802.png

Seems to me that says that the PL's power of inquiry is only to the current manager and the current officials, and the information that they can provide. And that they can ask for information from anyone else where the club is "able to do so". Many ways to say you aren't able to do so, I would imagine, and then miraculously turn up with it at the panel.

Edit: I may be wrong. It has been known occasionally :)
 
Champions again in 2012 said:
The bit I really do not get is 4 years to complete an investigation. Was it carried out by the office junior who picked it up and put down when they got bored or had to go on day release?

4 years, teams could win lots of trophies in 4 years and yes, I know it’s unlikely but a team could possibly win 4 consecutive premier league titles ;-)
Click to expand...
Thousands or millions of documents to obtain and examine
Plus litigation at every step
I understand why it’s taken 4 years
 
WRicko said:
Surely they can ask who they want they just cannot demand but even if the rules say you ask the club that doesn’t stop them asking the other people. And surly the rules cannot make the club provide stuff from third parties they have no control over

Do you think the rules prohibit them asking Mancini directly
Click to expand...

Seems that way to me. Of course, I could be wrong.
 
halfcenturyup said:
These are the latest rules around power of inquiry and provision of information:
View attachment 132551
View attachment 132552

And the definitions of Manager / Official, just for the record:
View attachment 132553
View attachment 132554

Seems to me that says that the PL's power of inquiry is only to the current manager and the current officials, and the information that they can provide. And that they can ask for information from anyone else where the club is "able to do so". Many ways to say you aren't able to do so, I would imagine, and then miraculously turn up with it at the panel.

Edit: I may be wrong. It has been known occasionally :)
Click to expand...

it’s ridiculous isn’t it.
 
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