PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[dickie davies]

So someone at anfield says we are going to get a 40 point deduction , someone says its going to be a fine, honestly at this point i think you're in the minority if you arent ITK on it, the reality of it is that nobody really knows anything, what i know is that since our owners have come in they have done every thing they said they were going to do and then some, so based on that track record if they say they arent guilty of anything i am much more inclined to believe a group who have a proven track record of telling the truth than the disingenuous bunch of charlatans who are currently are in charge of the pl.

 

[Colin Bells Boots]

Thought this shite would be over by now.

Pretty sure that most of us wish that the whole scenario was over and the club cleared of the witchunt carried by the PL on behalf of the clubs holding the power within the organisation.

Greed, entitlement and corruption within all brought about because of City being successful - who would possibly believe it ?

 

[HalfwayUpTheKippax]

Darren blew it when he mentioned the immortal word "may" get a fine.

Incredible that Darren knows the verdict before the inquiry has even heard the closing arguments.

Darren blew it when he said he was right about the covid vaccine.

 

[Inter Me Nan]

You did well considering he was at the AbuDhabi Grand Prix.

So was I!

 

[oakiecokie]

Not Benny?

More like Fanny. One for us FOC`s.

 

[Colin Bells Boots]

You did well considering he was at the AbuDhabi Grand Prix.

An AI hologram I am reliably told.

 

[M18CTID]

But wasn’t that the whole point though mate, that we did that in the past but would never do that again, ie pay a fine when we weren’t guilty?

That said, I could see it happening again …

The “taking the pinch” comment from Khaldoon preceded that. It was in the wake of our 2014 Settlememt Agreement with UEFA so 6 years before the later investigation and CAS verdict.

In any case, I think the club fully accepted that they hadn’t co-operated with UEFA because we stopped talking to them after that **** Parry started leaking details of the case to the press while it was still ongoing. It might be different this time as I’m of the opinion that we’ve co-operated with the PL as much as can be reasonably expected so if we only end up with a fine for non co-operation then we still might appeal it, whereas in respect of the UEFA case we happily took that one on the chin.

 

[slbsn]

Thanks for that. Just out of interest, has The Lawyer published anything about the finalisation of the APT tribunal? Just trying to get an idea how well informed they are - no news means the tribunal hasn't sat again?

No we know from Villa's letter that everyone expects the follow up Tribunal decision in about the same time as the original. Up to 90 daysish. Suspect it will be before Xmas myself but decisions take a long time

 

[antspider]

I didn't pay my poll tax, never come out with any ridiculous statements!!
My sources say we are going to be treated exactly the same way a team like Barcelona would be treated .:
So we are going to be awarded all the lunch expenses that have mounted during the tribunal (even if guilty) and given as many away tickets as we want for Barcelona's away matches

 

[halfcenturyup]

No we know from Villa's letter that everyone expects the follow up Tribunal decision in about the same time as the original. Up to 90 daysish. Suspect it will be before Xmas myself but decisions take a long time

Any thoughts on why the handbook with the new rules hasn't been published yet?

Just waiting for the tribunal? If so,what was the rush?

 

[slbsn]

Any thoughts on why the handbook with the new rules hasn't been published yet?

Just waiting for the tribunal? If so,what was the rush?

FA Board approval. Or the tribunal has issued something unhelpful. Suspect former

 

[halfcenturyup]

FA Board approval. Or the tribunal has issued something unhelpful. Suspect former

Fair enough. Thanks.

 

[Elbow beards]

So to summarise from all the knowledge collated from the Itk's we are going to get off Scott free but with only a minimum fine for none cooperation and a 40 point deduction and get the book throw at us and get relegated to the back of beyond with a huge fine to boot.

So none the wiser then.

 

[mancboy]

The “taking the pinch” comment from Khaldoon preceded that. It was in the wake of our 2014 Settlememt Agreement with UEFA so 6 years before the later investigation and CAS verdict.

In any case, I think the club fully accepted that they hadn’t co-operated with UEFA because we stopped talking to them after that **** Parry started leaking details of the case to the press while it was still ongoing. It might be different this time as I’m of the opinion that we’ve co-operated with the PL as much as can be reasonably expected so if we only end up with a fine for non co-operation then we still might appeal it, whereas in respect of the UEFA case we happily took that one on the chin.

The none co-operation is a bit of a weird one, it is my opinion that the pl have attempted to wildly overstep their jurisdiction and when we have not been compliant they have regarded that as none co-operation, they genuinely believed that they should have access to financial records of private families, multi-national businesses and various other institutions to attempt to prove their fruitless case against us, city were in no position to give those details and the pl should never have asked and they have taken that as none co-operation.

 

[Brightwell’s left peg]

The none co-operation is a bit of a weird one, it is my opinion that the pl have attempted to wildly overstep their jurisdiction and when we have not been compliant they have regarded that as none co-operation, they genuinely believed that they should have access to financial records of private families, multi-national businesses and various other institutions to attempt to prove their fruitless case against us, city were in no position to give those details and the pl should never have asked and they have taken that as none co-operation.

It’s like being accused of not cooperating with the thief that’s broken into your house and asking you where your family silver is.

 

[halfcenturyup]

FA Board approval. Or the tribunal has issued something unhelpful. Suspect former

Yes, fair enough. The FA took three weeks to approve the February 2024 amendments and it's been two weeks since the November vote, so I guess I can give it another week before my tin foil hat starts transmitting new conspiracies :)

 

[jaiguruKun]

If/when cleared, I guarantee that those hacks who are now suggesting we may be relegated or expelled will then be saying it was an open secret we would "get off lightly."

 

[halfcenturyup]

The none co-operation is a bit of a weird one, it is my opinion that the pl have attempted to wildly overstep their jurisdiction and when we have not been compliant they have regarded that as none co-operation, they genuinely believed that they should have access to financial records of private families, multi-national businesses and various other institutions to attempt to prove their fruitless case against us, city were in no position to give those details and the pl should never have asked and they have taken that as none co-operation.

It's a little more nuanced than that imho. The club were under no obligation (I think) to provide third party information to the investigation, but everyone knows such information exists because it was (partly, I suppose) provided at CAS. So by deliberately not providing information they have previously been able to provide, they were being obstructive.

I am not surprised the club did that and I am not surprised the PL included the allegations. Nor would I be surprised if the panel found in favour of the PL on this issue, as CAS did for UEFA, although maybe the Leicester decision makes that less likely due to the wording of the rule (and the later guidance) on disclosure.

But, like I keep saying, what do I know? :)

 

[mancboy]

It's a little more nuanced than that imho. The club were under no obligation (I think) to provide third party information to the investigation, but everyone knows such information exists because it was (partly, I suppose) provided at CAS. So by deliberately not providing information they have previously been able to provide, they were being obstructive.

I am not surprised the club did that and I am not surprised the PL included the allegations. Nor would I be surprised if the panel found in favour of the PL on this issue, as CAS did for UEFA, although maybe the Leicester decision makes that less likely due to the wording of the rule (and the later guidance) on disclosure.

But, like I keep saying, what do I know? :)

Just because the information exists , the club are under no obligation to provide said information unless it is beneficial to their case, the pl are trying to fundamentally destroy the club it is ludicrous to suggest that city should aid them in doing that by giving them anything but the bare minimum of info that benefits us imo

 

[halfcenturyup]

Just because the information exists , the club are under no obligation to provide said information unless it is beneficial to their case, the pl are trying to fundamentally destroy the club it is ludicrous to suggest that city should aid them in doing that by giving them anything but the bare minimum of info that benefits us imo

Of course, but the club will provide that information to the panel. So it's a choice of timing.

As I said, I completely understand why the club would choose to do that and I have tried to explain it a few times, but I can also see why CAS came to the conclusion they did, and I wouldn't be surprised if the panel did the same.