PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Keith Moon said:
It's not that difficult; for the Premier League to succeed where UEFA failed, they need better evidence. There is one person who claims to have proof that City deliberately violated the rules, and that person is Pinto—the same man responsible for us being in this situation. Moreover, he stands to gain significantly on a personal level if we are found guilty. So, if there's anything that should worry all Blues in this case, it's the new information Pinto might have contributed after CAS. You don't have to be a rag or a conspiracy theorist to come to that conclusion.
Click to expand...

They don't need a terribly high standard of evidence. They need enough circumstantial evidence (not proof) to tip the balance of probability. It's akin to 'given the evidence, would the average person believe City or the PL?'. Evidence in this case is the presentation of material that could be interpreted in ways that suggest City's guilt (or not). No smoking gun is necessary.
All of that said, it's not 51 vs 49. The evidence should be reasonably convincing.
I don't think the PL need or expect to win every argument, just enough to demonstrate City broke enough rules (deliberately) to be made an example of and appease a number of other PL members whilst being seen to be keeping their house in order.
If you will remember, the announcement of the 125 charges came in the face of the government turning its gaze on the effectiveness of the PL and the PL needed to demonstrate it could regulate itself... swiftly followed by similar action towards a few other clubs too.

The case is riddled with sporting and political agenda.
 
auction294 said:
Not wanting to hijack the thread but "over the top security policies" really? What does 'insecure methods' even mean? Wrong on so many levels.

back on topic, talk of 'charges' and 'cheating' is also wrong on many levels. Cheating is fielding 14 outfield players and 2 Goalkeepers, or bribing a match official, and as far as I can remember we haven't done either. We have supposedly not abided by 'rules' that weren't in force until we disrupted the cartel and their cosy world.

As for 'charges' other posters have eloquently written that the feasibility of a coordinated, collaboration of multiple organisations and senior individuals to conspire to commit fraud is literally laughable.

I remind myself constantly the legitimacy of the proceedings should be questioned, not City. Any organisation or individual can fall foul of laws or regulations if these are applied retrospectively with the intent to cause prejudice or damage be that reputationally or otherwise. Remembering that when the cartel dominated there was no need for the rules, not even when Jack Walker blew the rags away.

While I'm on my soapbox. Talk of Lord Pannick and his day rate has been discussed. His fee and that of the legal team should be put into perspective. Whilst the figures are eye watering no doubt, but they are not anything remarkable for him or the firms participating.

5 years ago the top fee earners at one of the firms representing City were commanding around 10k per day. I was with one of these Firms in 2019 at their Hong Kong office at the closing of a Merger to the value of 50Bn. I'm not privy to the details of both sides legal fees but assuming the legal fees, for both parties were at 2% of the Merger value combined between both representative firms then the costs whilst substantial (1Bn) the actual cost to the deal was not. My point being, Lord Pannicks day rate seems a big deal, but to him and his firm, not so much.

back to sacking our security team ..... I don't remember it being City's IT taken down for almost 1 month due to a ransomware attack. That dubious honour goes to United. Strange but true they approached me to head up their Cyber Security not long after - to be clear I said no.
Click to expand...
Fabulous post my friend, cheered me up enormously, thank you.
 
halfcenturyup said:
I think he relied on a previous scuttling case which stated that the standard was, of course, balance of probabilities but, in view of the seriousness of the claim: "Effectively, the standard will fall not far short of the rigorous criminal standard". Then again, he was presiding over a case where a ship owner had hired armed "pirates" to commandeer his ship and set fire to, and scuttle it for the insurance proceeds. More than a simple accounting fraud, I suppose.

Maybe the mistake in the book is suggesting that was a normal exception, rather than an extreme situation?

Anyway, never mind. It's clear what the standard is in the 115 case.
Click to expand...
Teare didn’t need to decide the point because he was referred to passages that no party disputed - I’d say what Teare said himself was more notable and he never moves from BoP. Today, the position on civil fraud (and perhaps still different in maritime law) is settled.
 
Keith Moon said:
Yes, you suggested Im a rag, in a not funny way.
Click to expand...
Not sure about being a rag but I tell you what, you’re very definitely a glass half empty sort of cove.

“A comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence” is what the club said, and until I see definitive proof they were lying, that’s good enough for me.
When has the club’s senior leadership ever let us down? Far far less than the media have ever printed lies about us.

You pays your money, you makes your choice, but I know who I put my faith in.
 
FanchesterCity said:
They don't need a terribly high standard of evidence. They need enough circumstantial evidence (not proof) to tip the balance of probability. It's akin to 'given the evidence, would the average person believe City or the PL?'. Evidence in this case is the presentation of material that could be interpreted in ways that suggest City's guilt (or not). No smoking gun is necessary.
All of that said, it's not 51 vs 49. The evidence should be reasonably convincing.
I don't think the PL need or expect to win every argument, just enough to demonstrate City broke enough rules (deliberately) to be made an example of and appease a number of other PL members whilst being seen to be keeping their house in order.
If you will remember, the announcement of the 125 charges came in the face of the government turning its gaze on the effectiveness of the PL and the PL needed to demonstrate it could regulate itself... swiftly followed by similar action towards a few other clubs too.

The case is riddled with sporting and political agenda.
Click to expand...
Serious question, do you have any expertise or experience on this topic because almost every sentence in the first paragraph is wrong. If you don’t have any domain expertise why reply and mislead the reader?

I disagree with most of the rest but that’s more opinion.
 
FanchesterCity said:
They don't need a terribly high standard of evidence. They need enough circumstantial evidence (not proof) to tip the balance of probability. It's akin to 'given the evidence, would the average person believe City or the PL?'. Evidence in this case is the presentation of material that could be interpreted in ways that suggest City's guilt (or not). No smoking gun is necessary.
All of that said, it's not 51 vs 49. The evidence should be reasonably convincing.
I don't think the PL need or expect to win every argument, just enough to demonstrate City broke enough rules (deliberately) to be made an example of and appease a number of other PL members whilst being seen to be keeping their house in order.
If you will remember, the announcement of the 125 charges came in the face of the government turning its gaze on the effectiveness of the PL and the PL needed to demonstrate it could regulate itself... swiftly followed by similar action towards a few other clubs too.

The case is riddled with sporting and political agenda.
Click to expand...
Crumbs if it’s a question of what the average person would believe then we are truly fucked. Luckily I suspect that is bollocks
 
slbsn said:
Hate to be one of those people but heard another positive soft signal (not transfer related) this morning. Seems to me that it would be incompatible with a finding of serious wrong doing at the club. I can't say anything specific but consistent with the other soft signals (being something in the background that would seem unlikely if a seriously negative outcome was coming from the case).
Click to expand...
Honestly Stefan, don’t worry about it. We’re all ears. :-)

Got to be honest, I’m so looking forward to the Talkshite show with Jim Shite, and the dodgy mobile phone seller, made good, when the 115 verdict comes out.

PS. I’m sure Jim and Simon are very nice people in person.
 
FanchesterCity said:
They don't need a terribly high standard of evidence. They need enough circumstantial evidence (not proof) to tip the balance of probability. It's akin to 'given the evidence, would the average person believe City or the PL?'. Evidence in this case is the presentation of material that could be interpreted in ways that suggest City's guilt (or not). No smoking gun is necessary.
All of that said, it's not 51 vs 49. The evidence should be reasonably convincing.
I don't think the PL need or expect to win every argument, just enough to demonstrate City broke enough rules (deliberately) to be made an example of and appease a number of other PL members whilst being seen to be keeping their house in order.
If you will remember, the announcement of the 125 charges came in the face of the government turning its gaze on the effectiveness of the PL and the PL needed to demonstrate it could regulate itself... swiftly followed by similar action towards a few other clubs too.

The case is riddled with sporting and political agenda.
Click to expand...
Stop posting you silly fool.
 
FanchesterCity said:
They don't need a terribly high standard of evidence. They need enough circumstantial evidence (not proof) to tip the balance of probability. It's akin to 'given the evidence, would the average person believe City or the PL?'. Evidence in this case is the presentation of material that could be interpreted in ways that suggest City's guilt (or not). No smoking gun is necessary.
All of that said, it's not 51 vs 49. The evidence should be reasonably convincing.
I don't think the PL need or expect to win every argument, just enough to demonstrate City broke enough rules (deliberately) to be made an example of and appease a number of other PL members whilst being seen to be keeping their house in order.
If you will remember, the announcement of the 125 charges came in the face of the government turning its gaze on the effectiveness of the PL and the PL needed to demonstrate it could regulate itself... swiftly followed by similar action towards a few other clubs too.

The case is riddled with sporting and political agenda.
Click to expand...
Why do people post in a topic on which they clearly don't know or understand what they are talking about .
 
Last edited:
slbsn said:
Hate to be one of those people but heard another positive soft signal (not transfer related) this morning. Seems to me that it would be incompatible with a finding of serious wrong doing at the club. I can't say anything specific but consistent with the other soft signals (being something in the background that would seem unlikely if a seriously negative outcome was coming from the case).
Click to expand...
is it safe.gif
 
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