PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

halfcenturyup said:
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.
Click to expand...
You would have to think they would go even further in this instance and call into question why the pl has decided to undertake such a forensic investigation into the clubs finances based on very circumspect evidence while not undertaking similar investigations into all clubs where the same level of hearsay evidence exists , i would say by specifically targeting us and ignoring the rags and dippers where the same level of impropriety exists the club could legitimately suggest that the pl is indeed acting in bad faith and this hindered our ability to co-operate also.
 
halfcenturyup said:
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? :)
Click to expand...
My lay reading and faulty memory recalls CAS being a bit frustrated with the club because they felt it would never have reached them if they'd provided the info they provided at the hearing earlier in the process.
 
mancboy said:
You would have to think they would go even further in this instance and call into question why the pl has decided to undertake such a forensic investigation into the clubs finances based on very circumspect evidence while not undertaking similar investigations into all clubs where the same level of hearsay evidence exists , i would say by specifically targeting us and ignoring the rags and dippers where the same level of impropriety exists the club could legitimately suggest that the pl is indeed acting in bad faith and this hindered our ability to co-operate also.
Click to expand...

My mind keeps coming back to the unconfirmed reports in June;

"Premier League chief executive Richard Masters is amongst those who have had to hand over messages, as is his predecessor Richard Scudamore.

Officials have to hand over all communications dating back to 2009 which mention City."

If that is true, and the PL was "ordered" to hand it over as the reports say, I can only think the material goes towards our defence against the non-cooperation charges.
 
halfcenturyup said:
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.
Click to expand...

I thought the club cooperated once it was instructed by law. Surely you have a right to challenge.
 
cheekybids said:
I thought the club cooperated once it was instructed by law. Surely you have a right to challenge.
Click to expand...

I assume they fully complied as far as they were requested and within the rules as they understood them. If they were asked for information which in their opinion the PL had no right to ask for, it's a good policy to say fuck off.

The question is, if you later provide the information that was requested as evidence against allegations from the investigation, to what extent is that non-cooperation? :)
 
halfcenturyup said:
I assume they fully complied as far as they were requested and within the rules as they understood them. If they were asked for information which in their opinion the PL had no right to ask for, it's a good policy to say fuck off.

The question is, if you later provide the information that was requested as evidence against allegations from the investigation, to what extent is that non-cooperation? :)
Click to expand...

I think the difference with UEFA was we never cooperated & went to CAS. We have cooperated with the premier league enquiry but as its serious we have followed legal advice prior.
 
halfcenturyup said:
You may be right. We will see in a few months, one way or the other :)
Click to expand...

I just know when I went through a case & you’d get to the next meeting & they would have another demand which was their legal right. & emotionally I knew it was bollocks my solicitor explained they have every right to do what they are doing so they’ll exercise it.
I fail to see how City can be found guilty if they have been providing evidence particularly when the evidence belongs to a third party.
 
manimanc said:
I call bullshit.
Khaldoon said we won't take the pinch for anyone.

If we are innocent what do we need to pay a "hefty fine" for?

I believe the bit about the massive rebuild though he used the word 'massive' so I'm dubious.
Click to expand...
If it was just a fine, I expect it would be for the non-cooperation charges similar to what happened at CAS.
 
bobmcfc said:
Thought this shite would be over by now.
Click to expand...

Take these

images
 
I think this has cast a pall over the team. I realize were amidst the biggest injury crisis in recent memory but until there's a definite decision on this I think we'll not be able to focus on the job of winning games.
 
cheekybids said:
I just know when I went through a case & you’d get to the next meeting & they would have another demand which was their legal right. & emotionally I knew it was bollocks my solicitor explained they have every right to do what they are doing so they’ll exercise it.
I fail to see how City can be found guilty if they have been providing evidence particularly when the evidence belongs to a third party.
Click to expand...

Because the club will have provided it when it suited them?

Only read the rest of this if you are really interested. It's just a few thoughts.....



If this is about external evidence then I think it will boil down to the panel's interpretation of the rules. Guidance was included in 2020 (coincidentally) that the club had to make best efforts (or some such wording) to obtain third party information when requested. When the investigation started there was no such rule/guidance. So I imagine the club's position will be that they can't apply the 2020 guidance to an investigation started in 2018 and there was therefore no requirement to provide any third party information to the investigation. I imagine the PL's argument is that they can (remember the rumours from early 2024 that the club was challenging the application of new rules to earlier periods?), and that the fact that the club provided external evidence to the panel is proof they didn't make best efforts during the investigation.

The precise-wording finding of the Leicester case may help the club as well.

At the end of the day, the panel may well take the view, as CAS did, that if the club had provided the evidence earlier then there would have been no need for the disciplinary process at all and so the club has made a mockery of the PL's whole investigative process. The panel would naturally side with the PL in that case to discourage other clubs from withholding information in the future. I wouldn't be surprised by that at all.

As I say, just a few thoughts.

And all imh and poorly formed o, of course.
 
Brightwell Bros. said:
My lay reading and faulty memory recalls CAS being a bit frustrated with the club because they felt it would never have reached
Brightwell Bros. said:
My lay reading and faulty memory recalls CAS being a bit frustrated with the club because they felt it would never have reached them if they'd provided the info they provided at the hearing earlier in the process.
Click to expand...

We had no choice with UEFA because they leaked our confidential data as soon as they got it,
Click to expand...
 
halfcenturyup said:
Because the club will have provided it when it suited them?

Only read the rest of this if you are really interested. It's just a few thoughts.....



If this is about external evidence then I think it will boil down to the panel's interpretation of the rules. Guidance was included in 2020 (coincidentally) that the club had to make best efforts (or some such wording) to obtain third party information when requested. When the investigation started there was no such rule/guidance. So I imagine the club's position will be that they can't apply the 2020 guidance to an investigation started in 2018 and there was therefore no requirement to provide any third party information to the investigation. I imagine the PL's argument is that they can (remember the rumours from early 2024 that the club was challenging the application of new rules to earlier periods?), and that the fact that the club provided external evidence to the panel is proof they didn't make best efforts during the investigation.

The precise-wording finding of the Leicester case may help the club as well.

At the end of the day, the panel may well take the view, as CAS did, that if the club had provided the evidence earlier then there would have been no need for the disciplinary process at all and so the club has made a mockery of the PL's whole investigative process. The panel would naturally side with the PL in that case to discourage other clubs from withholding information in the future. I wouldn't be surprised by that at all.

As I say, just a few thoughts.

And all imh and poorly formed o, of course.
Click to expand...

I used to work in a warehouse so I think it classes me as an expert ;)
 
cheekybids said:
I used to work in a warehouse so I think it classes me as an expert ;)
Click to expand...

You know as much as everyone else mate, our lawyers and people attending the tribunal aren't exactly giving a blow by blow account of what's happening outside the Kangaroo court.

:)
 
mancboy said:
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
Click to expand...

You never put the bullets in the assassin’s gun.
 
cheekybids said:
I just know when I went through a case & you’d get to the next meeting & they would have another demand which was their legal right. & emotionally I knew it was bollocks my solicitor explained they have every right to do what they are doing so they’ll exercise it.
I fail to see how City can be found guilty if they have been providing evidence particularly when the evidence belongs to a third party.
Click to expand...
How long did you get in Strangeways?
 
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