Just a quick reminder that the understanding from the well sourced Lawyer magazine, is that the "trial" is a split hearing. Liability (ie whether the charges are proven) will be established first (and presumably published) and then there will a separate hearing dealing with sanction with both parties putting their case as to mitigation, aggrevating factors and proposed sanctions. This will be similar to those 3-5 day hearings in the Everton and Forest cases which, ultimately, were about the sanction as the charges were admitted.
If that is true, far from deciding on a points deduction, they haven't even (and won't) put their respective cases on sanctions for many months even in the worst case for City.
Perfect timing, straight after our comeback win ' ....he heard someone at Anfield ....40 point deduction' sounds like dipper dreamtalk to me. No way any of the substantitive charges will succeed and non-coperation would be a financial penalty even if it was upheld, which seems doubtful. My money is on the red scouse worst nightmares coming true & last night was the beginning of their collapse and our recovery.Sorry to put a dampener on things this morning after getting back to winning ways but just thought I’d share this. One of our lot was telling me last night that he heard on Sunday from someone at Anfield that 50-odd charges have fallen away but they’re going to find against us on some of the others, and we’re getting a 40 point deduction. Now if this “someone” was a random bloke, then obviously I wouldn’t even be giving it the time of day, let alone posting it on here. However, we all know or have at least heard of this “someone” - who I won’t name but I’m sure some will be able to work out who it is - and he told my mate that he’d heard this from a contact “high up at the club”.
Anyway, this mate who heard this said he naturally wasn’t in the best of moods as the second half kicked off! However, he has plenty of other contacts in the media and at the club. One of his media contacts is someone who’s been his mate for the past 30-odd years and again is someone we all know as he errr, cough cough, posts on here ;) So he asked him if he’d heard anything about this so-called 40 point deduction. The answer he got back was along the lines of “That’s bollocks as they’ve not even done the summing up yet!”. This is a fair point as while I think both sides might have an inkling of how things are going at this stage, if the summing up hasn’t even started (or is just starting going off the pics that have been posted on here), let alone the panel then sitting down and spending months deliberating, I can’t see how anyone would know at this point in time what our punishment - if there is to be any - would be.
Like I say, sorry for the seemingly negative post but I think it’s only fair that info from sources should be shared regardless of whether it’s positive or negative.
Calm down mate ffs! By the way, half the forum knows who the source is now so if you want a PM then let me know. If not, get off your fucking high horse ;)I'm confused, you say you had to post it but then state that it can't be true as they're only doing closing arguments as we speak? So if you know it's bollocks then why post at all? I seriously couldn't give a fuck who it allegedly originated from, especially when it's 3 people removed.
And why are people seriously discussing a 40 point deduction?
Its like the police turning up asking to search your house without a warrant or reason why they want to search your house then charging you for not letting them inIt's down to the pl to prove guilt not for us to help them. How can they fine City for non cooperation when the whole thing is a corrupte cartel run kangaroo charge sheet. Which the pl couldn't even get the charge sheet correct
So we will find out which (if any) charges are proven before any potential penalties are decided.Just a quick reminder that the understanding from the well sourced Lawyer magazine, is that the "trial" is a split hearing. Liability (ie whether the charges are proven) will be established first (and presumably published) and then there will a separate hearing dealing with sanction with both parties putting their case as to mitigation, aggrevating factors and proposed sanctions. This will be similar to those 3-5 day hearings in the Everton and Forest cases which, ultimately, were about the sanction as the charges were admitted.
If that is true, far from deciding on a points deduction, they haven't even (and won't) put their respective cases on sanctions for many months even in the worst case for City.
it doesn't sound logical, it has to be bassed on guesswork 'if true' to come up with the 40 points at this stage, id say someone has dissected the charges the PL have 'thought' to have won and looked at the penalty sheet and arrived at this number of points, it means nothing because even if true 40 points on appeal can become 20 or 10 or even nothing, the pathway this is bassed on leads us to Anfield so on the strength of that alone i'd suggest its wishfull thinking of those rubbing there private parts and getting a sexual kick to see us punished,, Business as usual chaps pleaseI don't blame @M18CTID for posting but I'm inclined to believe either the information he's heard is simply false OR if true then the Premier League are in no mans land.
Reason being, if we're guilty of the most serious charges I think 40 points is too lenient on what the PL would request and what the IC would make. On the other hand, if we are not guilty of the most serious breaches, 40 points would seem ridiculously extreme for some less serious offences.
My guess, and it's only a guess, is that we'll either be completely fucked (much bigger punishment than 40 points deduction), or if not guilty of the most serious allegations we'll end up with a minimal deduction or possibly a fine. Or alternatively of course, we're cleared of everything.
The 40 points thing just doesn't sound logical in any outcome to me. As I say, only a guess.
I'm calm as can be, but thanks for asking. No, really not arsed where the bollocks came from, just puzzled why you would post it unless it's just for the attention.Calm down mate ffs! By the way, half the forum knows who the source is now so if you want a PM then let me know. If not, get off your fucking high horse ;)
He showed me some of the correspondence last night between him and the source which was from Sunday and he showed me that before our game kicked off against Forest so it was before we won the match. Are you seriously suggesting that some or all of me/my mate/the source of the story are dippers? ;)Perfect timing, straight after our comeback win ' ....he heard someone at Anfield ....40 point deduction' sounds like dipper dreamtalk to me. No way any of the substantitive charges will succeed and non-coperation would be a financial penalty even if it was upheld, which seems doubtful. My money is on the red scouse worst nightmares coming true & last night was the beginning of their collapse and our recovery.
I'm calm as can be, but thanks for asking. No, really not arsed where the bollocks came from, just puzzled why you would post it unless it's just for the attention.
I posted it because the source is someone who many City fans have a lot of time for.I'm calm as can be, but thanks for asking. No, really not arsed where the bollocks came from, just puzzled why you would post it unless it's just for the attention.
You've seen correspondence regarding the case?!He showed me some of the correspondence last night which was from Sunday and was before our game kicked off against Forest so it was before we won the match. Are you seriously suggesting that some or all of me/my mate/the source of the story are dippers? ;)
Just a quick reminder that the understanding from the well sourced Lawyer magazine, is that the "trial" is a split hearing. Liability (ie whether the charges are proven) will be established first (and presumably published) and then there will a separate hearing dealing with sanction with both parties putting their case as to mitigation, aggrevating factors and proposed sanctions. This will be similar to those 3-5 day hearings in the Everton and Forest cases which, ultimately, were about the sanction as the charges were admitted.
If that is true, far from deciding on a points deduction, they haven't even (and won't) put their respective cases on sanctions for many months even in the worst case for City.
I may be misunderstanding you here, and if so, then my apologies, but are you actually stating that pre-match on Sunday, your associate showed you some correspondence from the actual 115 hearing??He showed me some of the correspondence last night which was from Sunday and was before our game kicked off against Forest so it was before we won the match. Are you seriously suggesting that some or all of me/my mate/the source of the story are dippers? ;)
No FFS! Correspondence between him and the source and correspondence between him and his other contact who posts on here.You've seen correspondence regarding the case?!
WTF?
If it was a journalist, I can only think of one who fits that description.I posted it because the source is someone who many City fans have a lot of time for.
Yes, you've misunderstood! I'll edit my postI may be misunderstanding you here, and if so, then my apologies, but are you actually stating that pre-match on Sunday, your associate showed you some correspondence from the actual 115 hearing??
If so, you have a duty to let the relevant authorities know that they have a serious leak. It would also be serious mitigation for City if things like that are being handed around publicly, so you also have a duty as a City fan to let the relevant authorities know.
Again, if I have misread or misunderstood your post, then I apologise.
Is the 40 point person big steve or ian cheeseman?Yes, he's the one who called it out as bollocks!
Bet you wished you hadn't bothered now ;)Yes, you've misunderstood! I'll edit my post