PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

halfcenturyup said:
City's stance is firstly that they didn't do anything that is alleged, secondly that the evidence provided by the PL is presented out of context and lastly that they have irrefutable evidence to counter the allegations anyway.

The stance of every sane analyst who knows what they are talking about is that the standard of proof required for the PL to prove the allegations is so high that it will be nearly impossible to reach it, even if the club did what was alleged.

The stance of every psychotic analyst who only knows what they want to happen is that the der Spiegel leaks are clearly the definitive evidence that the allegations will be proven.

It's been this way since February last year and nothing has changed. I know which way I am leaning.
Click to expand...

I basically agree with all of that. Just one or two things to add.

First, I'd be very disappointed if City turn out actually to have done what's alleged, at least as regards any offence that, if made out, would be serious enough to entail a potential points deduction. I think it should have been easy enough for the club's execs to operate within the rules and still achieve their objectives.

Second, the PL will surely have more than the emails given the length of their investigation as well as the powers they had to demand documents and information. We have to assume they'll have uncovered during that process further pieces of evidence that they regard as bolstering the case against the club.

It's hard to imagine what they could realistically have that takes them to the necessary standard of proof, especially having regard to the requirement - much discussed some time back on this thread - for cogency. Nonetheless, the safer assumption is that they'll have something.

Third, as you say, we're no better informed now about the detail of the parties' arguments than we were in February 2023, although that hasn't stopped discussion of and speculation over that topic helping to nudge this thread beyond 75,000 posts. To be fair, there are some very high-quality contributions in here among all the ones that don't really add much. IMO, the best contributions on this thread offer the best analysis of the case available more or less anywhere.

Nonetheless, the essential dichotomy that I discussed at the outset still remains. City's confidence about having irrefutable evidence and the entirely reasonable assumption that the PL wouldn't have accused the club in this way without being confident of having a strong case are mutually exclusive. Something doesn't add up.

We know what we want and hope it to be. Nonetheless, it won't be confirmed until the matter is determined and we have the reasoning. But someone is surely going to emerge looking stupid.

BREAKING:

The Lawyer magazine cancelled my subscription some time back in response to my living in Mordor, but they still send digests, more than once a day, summarising legal news. I've just received this morning's, which is headed as follows from the publication's Litigation Tracker: The Hearing - The end is in sight for Manchester City case

That's followed by this text: The trial of the Premier League’s 115 charges against Manchester City is due to wrap up in December, but the length and complexity of the case means that a decision is unlikely to be published for several months.

So, looks like the hearing is still ongoing. However, I can't break the paywall, even using archive.ph.

If anyone has access, please let us know what the rest of the piece says. Or, in case anyone is better at accessing what's meant to be subscription-only content than I am, the link is here: https://www.thelawyer.com/the-hearing-the-end-is-in-sight-for-manchester-city-case/
 
Bez said:
Our form in our last 7 games is W1 D1 L5. 115. Spooky.
Click to expand...
Natalie Pike signing off last night....

giphy.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bez
ayrshire_blue said:


I haven't got a subscription, but just to add a tiny little bit to Petrusha's excellent post. The author of the article says the hearing is currently paused. So at least we have a status update.
Click to expand...

Interesting. So although paused, the hearing hasn't finished yet.

Is there a particular reason why it would be paused? Lawyers working on other cases perhaps?
 
petrusha said:
I basically agree with all of that. Just one or two things to add.

First, I'd be very disappointed if City turn out actually to have done what's alleged, at least as regards any offence that, if made out, would be serious enough to entail a potential points deduction. I think it should have been easy enough for the club's execs to operate within the rules and still achieve their objectives.

Second, the PL will surely have more than the emails given the length of their investigation as well as the powers they had to demand documents and information. We have to assume they'll have uncovered during that process further pieces of evidence that they regard as bolstering the case against the club.

It's hard to imagine what they could realistically have that takes them to the necessary standard of proof, especially having regard to the requirement - much discussed some time back on this thread - for cogency. Nonetheless, the safer assumption is that they'll have something.

Third, as you say, we're no better informed now about the detail of the parties' arguments than we were in February 2023, although that hasn't stopped discussion of and speculation over that topic helping to nudge this thread beyond 75,000 posts. To be fair, there are some very high-quality contributions in here among all the ones that don't really add much. IMO, the best contributions on this thread offer the best analysis of the case available more or less anywhere.

Nonetheless, the essential dichotomy that I discussed at the outset still remains. City's confidence about having irrefutable evidence and the entirely reasonable assumption that the PL wouldn't have accused the club in this way without being confident of having a strong case are mutually exclusive. Something doesn't add up.

We know what we want and hope it to be. Nonetheless, it won't be confirmed until the matter is determined and we have the reasoning. But someone is surely going to emerge looking stupid.

BREAKING:

The Lawyer magazine cancelled my subscription some time back in response to my living in Mordor, but they still send digests, more than once a day, summarising legal news. I've just received this morning's, which is headed as follows from the publication's Litigation Tracker: The Hearing - The end is in sight for Manchester City case

That's followed by this text: The trial of the Premier League’s 115 charges against Manchester City is due to wrap up in December, but the length and complexity of the case means that a decision is unlikely to be published for several months.

So, looks like the hearing is still ongoing. However, I can't break the paywall, even using archive.ph.

If anyone has access, please let us know what the rest of the piece says. Or, in case anyone is better at accessing what's meant to be subscription-only content than I am, the link is here: https://www.thelawyer.com/the-hearing-the-end-is-in-sight-for-manchester-city-case/
Click to expand...

I tried to be brief :)

Great to hear from you, as always. Hope you are OK over there.
 
M18CTID said:
Interesting. So although paused, the hearing hasn't finished yet.

Is there a particular reason why it would be paused? Lawyers working on other cases perhaps?
Click to expand...


Waiting for the finalisation of the APT case? ;)

Just joking because it adds to my conspiracy theory .....
 
halfcenturyup said:
I tried to be brief :)

Great to hear from you, as always. Hope you are OK over there.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I'm OK as long as I focus on my own life day by day and ignore what's happening in the wider world. Meanwhile, on my posting, as you know, I don't do brief. I occasionally used to try but it never worked and I understood it's not for me. ;)

ayrshire_blue said:
Stefan saying on twitter/x that there's now almost no chance this is wrapped up this season.

I suppose, if our form continues we may relegate ourselves anyway, so then the Premier League can't sanction us in that manner. See - there's always a positive.
Click to expand...

He's right, assuming there's an appeal, and that's highly likely whatever happens. If City lose on any remotely significant point, we'll definitely appeal and the PL's general conduct suggests that they wouldn't let it lie, either, should they lose on anything major. That probably means it dragging on well into next season.
 
Last edited:
ayrshire_blue said:


I haven't got a subscription, but just to add a tiny little bit to Petrusha's excellent post. The author of the article says the hearing is currently paused. So at least we have a status update.
Click to expand...

But...but....there were tweets saying it had finished early and it was all good for us.

If true that the hearing is paused and that it will finish some time in December then I'm changing my prediction of the judgement being released in March to until after the season finishes.
 
petrusha said:
Thanks. I'm OK as long as I focus on my own life day by day and ignore what's happening in the wider world. Meanwhile, on my posting, as you know, I don't do brief. I occasionally used to try but it never worked and I understood it's not for me. ;)



He's right, assuming there's an appeal, and that's highly likely whatever happens. If City lose on any remotely significant point, we'll definitely appeal and the PL's general conduct suggests that they wouldn't let it lie, either, should they lose on anything major. That probably means it dragging on well into next season.
Click to expand...
Hopefully it'll be the Premier League doing the appealing ;)
 
Anyone considered reporting ole Magic twat/Prick Harris for distributing hacked material? (An offence under the Computer Misuse Act 1990).
 
M18CTID said:
Hopefully it'll be the Premier League doing the appealing ;)
Click to expand...

Indeed so. :) Not impossible that both could appeal, though. If City prevailed almost across the board but went down on non-cooperation along with one or two other minor matters and had a hefty fine imposed but no sporting sanction, I'd be delighted with that outcome.

However, I wouldn't be altogether surprised if the stakeholders in Abu Dhabi pushed the club to challenge the adverse part of the verdict. And the PL would be highly likely in the same scenario to challenge the verdict in other areas, if not all of them then at least in relation to those matters regarding which they regard their evidence as being relatively strong.
 
petrusha said:
Indeed so. :) Not impossible that both could appeal, though. If City prevailed almost across the board but went down on non-cooperation along with one or two other minor matters and had a hefty fine imposed but no sporting sanction, I'd be delighted with that outcome.

However, I wouldn't be altogether surprised if the stakeholders in Abu Dhabi pushed the club to challenge the adverse part of the verdict. And the PL would be highly likely in the same scenario to challenge the verdict in other areas, if not all of them then at least in relation to those matters regarding which they regard their evidence as being relatively strong.
Click to expand...
Good intel, thanks.

Maybe the thread should be frozen for a Christmas break for all posters well-being!
 
jaiguruKun said:
Anyone considered reporting ole Magic twat/Prick Harris for distributing hacked material? (An offence under the Computer Misuse Act 1990).
Click to expand...
No need. Ive already reported him as being a **** under s1.15 of The Prevention of Cunting Act (2023). Currently awaiting a response from OFFCUNT (no doubt they"re all WFH).
 
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