PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

KS55 said:
PL rules basically say we have to provide whatever they ask for. One of the few instances where a company is required to help its accuser find it guilty. No fifth amendment here.
In the current case, I assume City will say the PL just went on a massive fishing expedition and it became so onerous that we called a halt.
CAS reduced our fine because of poor practice by UEFA in leaking stuff.
I expect the panel to rule in favour of the PL.
Click to expand...
My understanding is that the reduction in the sum withheld from City by UEFA was not connected with the leaks. CAS felt it was fair not to pay City 10 million euros due to the club because City had withheld "evidence" from UEFA which it had provided for the CAS hearing. Had the club provide this evidence earlier to UEFA, UEFA would not have punished City and the case would have gone no further. Very charitable view of UEFA perhaps, but there you are!
 
mancboy said:
But surely thats a bullshit notion if they have asked for something that city has no right to supply them with?
Click to expand...

We must have provided evidence to CAS to find us not guilty, Just like with the Premier League tribunal panel, City would have provided evidence that is watertight,
 
Eric Hitchmough said:
I’ve never heard of the podcaster Rob Moore until just now and I’m not gonna post a link to the video to give him more clicks.

But in his interview with Le Tissier, in a video posted 2 days ago, Moore said: “What do you think about FFP? Have Man City been at it? They must have broken every rule in the book.”

Add him to the list of cunts.
Click to expand...
Has to be a dipper fan with a name like that.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Not so sure. We don't know what the non-cooperation relates to. They can't just ask anything, I think.

Any PL request has to be.... "in exercise of its power of inquiry" into a "suspected breach". And then only from the club, manager, player or official.

They could ask the club to provide information from third parties but they have no right to it. Even when they changed the guidance (in the middle of the investigation, no less) the requirement was only to provide third party information "if able to do so".

So it's difficult to say, I think. I still have in my mind that the non-cooperation relates just to third party information in which case the club has more of an argument against the allegation. But I accept I am probably the only one that thinks that, so I suppose it's more likely the panel will err on the side of the PL for procedural reasons, like CAS did.

A couple of points on CAS. Iirc, they didn't reduce the fine to 10 million for non-cooperation, because UEFA never said what the original fine was for. They imposed what they thought was a reasonable sanction for the offence. And I don't think they mentioned any leaks as a mitigation, did they?

Anyway, could all be bollocks, as always :)
Click to expand...
I'm probably wrong, but I'm sure CAS made a comment on the lines of if city did cooperate with UEFA with their requests then there would have been no grounds for them to charge us.
I can't remember if I heard that as someones opinion or read it somewhere.
 
The Future’s Blue! said:
I seem to remember it was very much like this before the CAS verdict, the media ramping up the opinion that we’d lost the case and we’re going to get hammered, so much so that nobody could believe that, apart from the non-cooperation charge, we were cleared of all the other charges.

Anybody remember Warnock on SSN, telling the world of our guilt, only for the presenter to tell him that it was only the non-cooperation we were done for? Took him a good 30 minutes for it to sink in as he picked his jaw up from the ground.
Click to expand...
Indeed! And I think we all remember Klopp being wheeled out AFTER the CAS award to tell us what a sad day it was for football because we had got rid of FFP which was what football needed, to be followed by the PC (NOT politically correct) Mourinho to tell us that the award was just plain wrong. Oh ... and the PL to tell us they hadn't finished with us ... And now, years later ... but not a whisper of a smoking gun ...
 
KS55 said:
This makes it clear that the fine was for non-cooperation. Not sure why people keep denying this.
Click to expand...
Didn’t City say they decided not to challenge that in order to bring the matter to a close, though? Possibly not worth the cost.

However the chairman seems more determined to defend all charges this time.
 
Eric Hitchmough said:
I’ve never heard of the podcaster Rob Moore until just now and I’m not gonna post a link to the video to give him more clicks.

But in his interview with Le Tissier, in a video posted 2 days ago, Moore said: “What do you think about FFP? Have Man City been at it? They must have broken every rule in the book.”

Add him to the list of cunts.
Click to expand...
This is exactly the sort of ****, giving it the Billy Big Bollocks, emboldened and pumped up by the club’s policy of diffidence, that needs bringing to heel if this goes our way.
 
ancoats said:
We must have provided evidence to CAS to find us not guilty, Just like with the Premier League tribunal panel, City would have provided evidence that is watertight,
Click to expand...
City certainly provided CAS with evidence which, at the vey least, furnished a credible alternative case to that put forward by UEFA. We know that UEFA's case was, in fact, very weak as it amounted to no more than copies of a small number of emails. It appears that the PL have more documents than UEFA on which to base its case BUT it appears that they are trying to overturn the CAS award. This means that the IC has to be persuade by compelling evidence that CAS was misled by City and if they can't do this City don't really need to say a word. The onus of proof is on the PL and we don't know what new evidence, if any, they have, but City are confident (though perhaps not as much as Mr Jordan's "RAWK index of confidence" requires) that our evidence proves the club's innocence. This is why many on here are still absolutely positive and share the club's total confidence.
 
Citizen of Legoland said:
Didn’t City say they decided not to challenge that in order to bring the matter to a close, though? Possibly not worth the cost.

However the chairman seems more determined to defend all charges this time.
Click to expand...

No, you're mixing up the settlement agreement we originally made with UEFA that had the squad size reduced for a season and held back some CL payment money. Can't remember the year, perhaps 2013.

It's also worth pointing out that despite having the most investigated accounts in the history of professional sports, Manchester City have never had a single act of financial mismanagement or fraud proven against them. The first UEFA was a settlement agreement to avoid a court room where we made it clear that we don't accept any guilt and UEFA didn't imply any. UEFA 2 was overturned by CAS because they didn't actually have any evidence.
 
petrusha said:
I suspect he's putting forward his own opinion of how confident City ought to be based on what he's heard about the hearing based on the views of someone on the other side. But even if that's wrong, it's generated a ludicrous amount of discussion on this thread.

As @halfcenturyup said, there's a lot of high-quality analysis in this thread that you wont' find replicated elsewhere. At the same time, though, there's also a welter of absolute shite on here.
Click to expand...
Only quoting to pay compliment to that positively Joycean turn of phrase at the end, "a welter of absolute shite".
Well played.
 
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