PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Paladin]

Doesn't need to be knowledge of an established/proven fraud. It is for the claimant to commence its work once it has sufficient confidence to justify embarking on the preliminaries to issue proceedings. Pretty sure the latest date is around Der Speigel for these allegations (although obviously we'd need to see the judgment). Put it this way, no claimant could argue the first time they thought they may have a claim vs City is sometime in the future from now. They have all been considering it for years (if claims proven).

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[blueparrot]

I’m assuming that the two sets of lawyers will make separate submissions to the panel and won’t be interrogated together so there will be little likelihood that either team will know how they are doing. Is that how it works as in a court of law you would generally get an inkling for which way the wind is blowing?

I have no idea really, but my assumption is, both sides provide their evidence ,then the panel call each side back and cross examine them on their evidence using the evidence from both sides and there is a bit of back and forth.
This is the point where I’m guessing one side or the other may get an inkling ,from the questions asked of them and the evidence they have in answer to those questions

 

[Brendan110_0]

correct but the rule is simply, does the manager have a contract or not. There's no mention of exact renumeration is needed or a second contract with a separate company is not allowed. So the mancini stuff is pretty much in the bin from the start. That's before the statute of limitations even needs considering

Schrodinger's limitations, don't apply to City but do when other clubs are after compensation.

 

[Lord Blue]

I’m assuming that the two sets of lawyers will make separate submissions to the panel and won’t be interrogated together so there will be little likelihood that either team will know how they are doing. Is that how it works as in a court of law you would generally get an inkling for which way the wind is blowing?

city will get the chance to defend every point that the premier league makes.
both sides will hear every thing that is said so both sides will at least be aware of any slam dunks.
it's border line judgments that would be less predictable i expect.

 

[LeonardoDaVnci]

i know nothing but i would have thought a stalemate is impossible. Either the PL can prove the allegations or they can't. Surely?

It's almost inevitable that it won't be a binary Guilty or Not Guilty. It will be a spectrum of judgments eg Etihad, Aabar sponsorships are cleared, ie all questions answered. Worst case scenario, the contested Etisalat £30m payment could be ruled as acting in bad faith, in one FY only. Hopefully all other Etisalat payments are completely cleared, there is nothing else about Etisalat that is contentious and in the public domain. If Mancini is considered as not time barred and he didn't set foot in Abu Dhabi in one specific FY, then once again that could be ruled bad faith, in one FY. The non cooperation charges can only lead to non sporting sanctions, so bollocks to them. It terns of severity of possible sporting sanction, I've always considered the weighing to be something like:-
Etihad 80% (£600m 10 year deal)
Etisalat 5%
Aabar 5%
Mancini 5%
Toure/Fordham 5%
Non cooperation 0%

 

[M18CTID]

correct but the rule is simply, does the manager have a contract or not. There's no mention of exact renumeration is needed or a second contract with a separate company is not allowed. So the mancini stuff is pretty much in the bin from the start. That's before the statute of limitations even needs considering

Yes, sorry mate - agree that it’s never been a smoking gun and it’s utterly laughable that they’ve thrown that one in.

 

[citizen_maine]

It's almost inevitable that it won't be a binary Guilty or Not Guilty. It will be a spectrum of judgments eg Etihad, Aabar sponsorships are cleared, ie all questions answered. Worst case scenario, the contested Etisalat £30m payment could be ruled as acting in bad faith, in one FY only. Hopefully all other Etisalat payments are completely cleared, there is nothing else about Etisalat that is contentious and in the public domain. If Mancini is considered as not time barred and he didn't set foot in Abu Dhabi in one specific FY, then once again that could be ruled bad faith, in one FY. The non cooperation charges can only lead to non sporting sanctions, so bollocks to them. It terns of severity of possible sporting sanction, I've always considered the weighing to be something like:-
Etihad 80% (£600m 10 year deal)
Etisalat 5%
Aabar 5%
Mancini 5%
Toure/Fordham 5%
Non cooperation 0%

As i understand it, there is nothing on the PL rules that deal with any other contract any manager has with another employer, so what Mancini did or didn't do as part of his other contract is moot?

 

[kaz7]

I would piss myself laughing if the only thing that sticks is the grass was too long

 

[Lord Blue]

It's almost inevitable that it won't be a binary Guilty or Not Guilty. It will be a spectrum of judgments eg Etihad, Aabar sponsorships are cleared, ie all questions answered. Worst case scenario, the contested Etisalat £30m payment could be ruled as acting in bad faith, in one FY only. Hopefully all other Etisalat payments are completely cleared, there is nothing else about Etisalat that is contentious and in the public domain. If Mancini is considered as not time barred and he didn't set foot in Abu Dhabi in one specific FY, then once again that could be ruled bad faith, in one FY. The non cooperation charges can only lead to non sporting sanctions, so bollocks to them. It terns of severity of possible sporting sanction, I've always considered the weighing to be something like:-
Etihad 80% (£600m 10 year deal)
Etisalat 5%
Aabar 5%
Mancini 5%
Toure/Fordham 5%
Non cooperation 0%

well i get that all the charges could have different outcomes. but i would have thought that each and every charge will either be proved or not. we may win some and we may lose some but no stalemate on any specific charge. i mean how would that even work?

 

[Stoned Rose]

well i get that all the charges could have different outcomes. but i would have thought that each and every charge will either be proved or not. we may win some and we may lose some but no stalemate on any specific charge. i mean how would that even work?

There won’t be any stalemates.

The PL will either prove any given charge or they won’t.

 

[LeonardoDaVnci]

As i understand it, there is nothing on the PL rules that deal with any other contract any manager has with another employer, so what Mancini did or didn't do as part of his other contract is moot?

Despite the LCFC ruling the PL will still have a go with "acting in bad faith", which to me is the PL saying "you should have to told us about Al Jirra". If I was on our legal team I would question the PL "If City had informed the PL about Al Jirra what precisely would the PL have done with that information?". They probably wouldn't want to reply "fuck all" but that is precisely what they did when they learnt about bacon face's racehorses given to him by the rag owners.

 

[remember arthur mann]

I would piss myself laughing if the only thing that sticks is the grass was too long

Lol.

 

[ysmsa]

"Have City cost you a title, have they taken money you believe to be rightfully yours" ?

Call 115 115 to make a quick no win, no fee claim.

CALL NOW, it's never too late!

** claims from Liverpool area will have to make a cash deposit before claim accepted. We just don't trust you**

 

[citizen_maine]

Despite the LCFC ruling the PL will still have a go with "acting in bad faith", which to me is the PL saying "you should have to told us about Al Jirra". If I was on our legal team I would question the PL "If City had informed the PL about Al Jirra what precisely would the PL have done with that information?". They probably wouldn't want to reply "fuck all" but that is precisely what they did when they learnt about bacon face's racehorses given to him by the rag owners.

I've no doubt that's exactly what they intended to do before the LCFC appeal, but they might struggle with that now. I'm also pretty sure they intended something similar with the non co-operation allegations, in that they're trying to do us under new rules that didn't exist for the period of the allegations

 

[Milesvk]

"Have City cost you a title, have they taken money you believe to be rightfully yours" ?

Call 115 115 to make a quick no win, no fee claim.

CALL NOW, it's never too late!

** claims from Liverpool area will have to make a cash deposit before claim accepted. We just don't trust you**

I can actually see something like that happening with Liverpool fans. Claims for mental health for not winning the league because city cheated.
There the only set of fans to claim compo for acting like cunts whilst other innocent fans get pepper sprayed from the paris police.

 

[bluemonkey71]

Is Tolms tweet related to this crap?

 

[Inter Me Nan]

Is Tolms tweet related to this crap?

Enlighten us?

 

[Big mals fedora]

** claims from Liverpool area will have to make a cash deposit before claim accepted. We just don't trust you**

Hi Mr Coote

 

[homerdog]

I'm no expert in civil litigation, although I've sat through a few cases in my time. What I do know, is that the panel will easily see through the charges if the PL has acted in bad faith (which is what we all think they've done).

The consequences of a definitive ruling favouring one side or the other has implications that could kill the goose that laid the golden egg. On that basis, I expect us to be found to have broken some minor rules (that the PL and media will describe as egregious) and be fined (in)appropriately, regardless of the truth.

At least, that's what I'm hoping happens!

 

[bluemonkey71]

Enlighten us?

Tolm tweeted ‘I sense a disturbance in the force’ with a fingers crossed icon