PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

salfordbluetrue said:
Never bothered me the story of Pinto handing over more evidence of his crime, pretty sure that unless it showed City committing a crime, then City are the owners of the data, and the only ones who have access to it.This is where the non cooperation charges probably came from, with City`s lawyers probably arguing that the PL did not charge City on the first instance, to verify a legal right to the information, and that no other Club has been asked for this information, despite numerous chances to use this right to information not covered in the rules.
My view only as a thicko :)
Click to expand...
City went to the commercial court to challenge the PL's right to see who the club regarded as commercially sensitive information as they were concerned that the data would a) be valuable to the PL as a commercial entity and b) would leak to rival clubs They lost the case City then had no option due the commercial court's ruling but to make the information available Also the judge ruled that the verdict could be made public which was appealed by the club supported by the PL however the appeal judge dismissed the appeal thus the PL's investigation became public It seems surprising to me that the club could be charged with non-cooperation unless the PL expected that they had the right to wholesale access why as City would release documents upon request
 
Gordyola said:
City went to the commercial court to challenge the PL's right to see who the club regarded as commercially sensitive information as they were concerned that the data would a) be valuable to the PL as a commercial entity and b) would leak to rival clubs They lost the case City then had no option due the commercial court's ruling but to make the information available Also the judge ruled that the verdict could be made public which was appealed by the club supported by the PL however the appeal judge dismissed the appeal thus the PL's investigation became public It seems surprising to me that the club could be charged with non-cooperation unless the PL expected that they had the right to wholesale access why as City would release documents upon request
Click to expand...
On cooperation, I wouldn’t assume anything. There will be good arguments even on that set of charges. “Exceptional cooperation” is a reason for mitigation but some of those matters assume, I would say, infer you don’t breach unless really obstructive and unreasonable. We don’t know what City did (challenging in the HC doesn’t seem to me to be non cooperation per se) and one would assume post the HC case they complied even if reluctantly and in a generally resistant mode. That isn’t massively unusual in disputes. Anyway this is what is “exceptional cooperation”. I think we can assume City won’t get mitigation (!) but punished? Not clear. 1735206465790.png
 
On cooperation, the likely basic level of co-op to avoid a breach can be considered against the recent standard articulated in the Everton appeal. I think the PL would need a few examples of unreasonable behaviour not just slow compliance or legal arguments (except where a panel had said they were clearly tactical (the HC did not say that).

Clearly, however, if City lose on the substantive matters they are very likely to lose on the cooperation too.
1735207148412.png
 
Gordyola said:
City went to the commercial court to challenge the PL's right to see who the club regarded as commercially sensitive information as they were concerned that the data would a) be valuable to the PL as a commercial entity and b) would leak to rival clubs They lost the case City then had no option due the commercial court's ruling but to make the information available Also the judge ruled that the verdict could be made public which was appealed by the club supported by the PL however the appeal judge dismissed the appeal thus the PL's investigation became public It seems surprising to me that the club could be charged with non-cooperation unless the PL expected that they had the right to wholesale access why as City would release documents upon request
Click to expand...

It would be interesting if there was evidence the premier league did leak to rival clubs.
 
slbsn said:
On cooperation, I wouldn’t assume anything. There will be good arguments even on that set of charges. “Exceptional cooperation” is a reason for mitigation but some of those matters assume, I would say, infer you don’t breach unless really obstructive and unreasonable. We don’t know what City did (challenging in the HC doesn’t seem to me to be non cooperation per se) and one would assume post the HC case they complied even if reluctantly and in a generally resistant mode. That isn’t massively unusual in disputes. Anyway this is what is “exceptional cooperation”. I think we can assume City won’t get mitigation (!) but punished? Not clear. View attachment 141338
Click to expand...
It's probably my reading of that but it feels like the PL were hoping for more to back up their “exceptional cooperation” requests?
 
Gordyola said:
City went to the commercial court to challenge the PL's right to see who the club regarded as commercially sensitive information as they were concerned that the data would a) be valuable to the PL as a commercial entity and b) would leak to rival clubs They lost the case City then had no option due the commercial court's ruling but to make the information available Also the judge ruled that the verdict could be made public which was appealed by the club supported by the PL however the appeal judge dismissed the appeal thus the PL's investigation became public It seems surprising to me that the club could be charged with non-cooperation unless the PL expected that they had the right to wholesale access why as City would release documents upon request
Click to expand...
Not sure about that, but it is above my head anyway. Always thought that it was CAS upholding the non cooperation charges, that gave the PL the belief that they could legitimately charge City 35 more times, and are not the 6 charges carried over from the UEFA disaster non cooperation?
 
salfordbluetrue said:
Not sure about that, but it is above my head anyway. Always thought that it was CAS upholding the non cooperation charges, that gave the PL the belief that they could legitimately charge City 35 more times, and are not the 6 charges carried over from the UEFA disaster non cooperation?
Click to expand...
2 cases are very different on non cooperation. Different rules and very different levels of disclosure and cooperation
 
Centurions said:
Nonsense?
Click to expand...
What concerns me about this case is that we don’t know what we are accused of or if there is new evidence regarding the 54 charges of Misrepresentation of Financial Information. The major threat to City lies in whether the Premier League has new evidence that they have either uncovered themselves or obtained from FootyLeaks/Pinto/EIC. If the latter, which is the source of this entire situation, claims that there is more material and that data has been shared with authorities, it is worrying.
 
Keith Moon said:
What concerns me about this case is that we don’t know what we are accused of or if there is new evidence regarding the 54 charges of Misrepresentation of Financial Information. The major threat to City lies in whether the Premier League has new evidence that they have either uncovered themselves or obtained from FootyLeaks/Pinto/EIC. If the latter, which is the source of this entire situation, claims that there is more material and that data has been shared with authorities, it is worrying.
Click to expand...
Well, it seems to be worrying to you, everybody else just seems to be laughing at your nonsense.
 
Keith Moon said:
What concerns me about this case is that we don’t know what we are accused of or if there is new evidence regarding the 54 charges of Misrepresentation of Financial Information. The major threat to City lies in whether the Premier League has new evidence that they have either uncovered themselves or obtained from FootyLeaks/Pinto/EIC. If the latter, which is the source of this entire situation, claims that there is more material and that data has been shared with authorities, it is worrying.
Click to expand...

Why don't you trust our owners ?

The pl are accusing some seriously big players on the world stage across various businesses of fraud.

Remember the pl is run by small fry in comparison to our owners, sponsors, accountants and investors. It is lead by racism and the Americans wanting a closed shop to guarantee income.
The American owners have bullied the weak pl leadership into this 'battle' that I believe the pl didn't want to go.

If City lose than football as we know and love is over. In a few years we won't recognise the game we love.

I believe our owners 100%, can the IC find City guilty ? I guess so BUT they have to be 100% certain that these big players of our owner, Etihad Airways, Silver lake and accountants have all committed fraud.
This would be massive in football but huge on the world stage of business as these people and their companies would be tainted as being fraudulent.
I can't see these companies just sitting back and letting the pl tainted them over some hacked and doctored emails.

Plus look at the extension City are building .....
 
Last edited:
give it to gordon said:
Why don't you trust our owners ?

The pl are accusing some seriously big players on the world stage across various businesses of fraud.

Remember the pl is run by small fry in comparison to our owners, sponsors and investors. It is lead by racism and the Americans wanting a closed shop to guarantee income.
The American owners have bullied the weak pl leadership into this 'battle' that I believe the pl didn't want to go.

If City lose than football as we know and love is over. In a few years we won't recognise the game we love.

I believe our owners 100%, can the IC find City guilty ? I guess so BUT they have to be 100% certain that these big players of our owner, Etihad Airways, Silver lake have all committed fraud.
This would be massive in football but huge on the world stage of business as these people and their companies would be tainted as being fraudulent.
I can't see these companies just sitting back and letting the pl tainted them over some hacked and doctored emails.

Plus look at the extension City are building .....
Click to expand...
Completely agree with all you say apart from the part where you say the Americans have bullied the weak PL leadership and they didn’t want the battle.

From what came out the other week with United and Liverpool being allowed to interview him before he was offered the role. He is there man and my thoughts are he’s not being forced into anything but in order to gain their support agreed to be there attack dog against us.

But it’s my opinion based on zero evidence and probably wrong.

How more wasn’t made of the clear bias in the rags and dippers being allowed to interview Dick Masters for the role emphasises the press bias.
I often wonder what the headlines would have been if city interviewed him.

I just hope after we (hopefully) win the case Masters reputation and career is left in tatters. But he will probably take a role up at UEFA or the dippers.
 
Micky Blue said:
Completely agree with all you say apart from the part where you say the Americans have bullied the weak PL leadership and they didn’t want the battle.

From what came out the other week with United and Liverpool being allowed to interview him before he was offered the role. He is there man and my thoughts are he’s not being forced into anything but in order to gain their support agreed to be there attack dog against us.

But it’s my opinion based on zero evidence and probably wrong.

How more wasn’t made of the clear bias in the rags and dippers being allowed to interview Dick Masters for the role emphasises the press bias.
I often wonder what the headlines would have been if city interviewed him.

I just hope after we (hopefully) win the case Masters reputation and career is left in tatters. But he will probably take a role up at UEFA or the dippers.
Click to expand...

The Premier League was set up 30 odd years ago for the rags and dippers interests. It’s not City’s league and Mansour arriving caused the biggest upset to their cosy monopoly since its creation, the fact they are having to dig up how much Mancini was paid 15 years shows how desperate they are to take down City. Roll on 2025 where we can finally put this shit to bed and highlight what a corrupt not for purpose organisation the Premier League is.
 
Keith Moon said:
What concerns me about this case is that we don’t know what we are accused of or if there is new evidence regarding the 54 charges of Misrepresentation of Financial Information. The major threat to City lies in whether the Premier League has new evidence that they have either uncovered themselves or obtained from FootyLeaks/Pinto/EIC. If the latter, which is the source of this entire situation, claims that there is more material and that data has been shared with authorities, it is worrying.
Click to expand...
Get well soon
 
Gordyola said:
City went to the commercial court to challenge the PL's right to see who the club regarded as commercially sensitive information as they were concerned that the data would a) be valuable to the PL as a commercial entity and b) would leak to rival clubs.
Click to expand...

Did the club make those two claims in front of the Commercial Court specifically? I thought it was to do with the jurisdiction of the tribunal and an apparent bias in the tribunal due to the process for appointment and reappointment to the Panel from which arbitrators are appointed?
 
Keith Moon said:
What concerns me about this case is that we don’t know what we are accused of or if there is new evidence regarding the 54 charges of Misrepresentation of Financial Information. The major threat to City lies in whether the Premier League has new evidence that they have either uncovered themselves or obtained from FootyLeaks/Pinto/EIC. If the latter, which is the source of this entire situation, claims that there is more material and that data has been shared with authorities, it is worrying.
Click to expand...

A question for the lawyers on here.

In February this year, Pinto gave the French authorities full and unrestricted access to all the information he hacked. Are there any circumstances in which the French authorities (or the British assuming it has been shared with them) can provide access to that hacked information to support a civil dispute between two private parties? I would guess no, as the authorities aren't whistleblowers or a public archiving service, but I am frequently wrong on matters of law. If I am right, however, it puts this whole Pinto discussion to bed. Thoughts?
 
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