PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

i kne albert davy said:
Really embarrassing article in the Guardian on online regarding Haaland deal basically what happens if City get relegated to the Championship league1 League 2 or National League. As far as I understand it the premier league don't have this sort of power even if the find us guilty which we're not, I'm sure they can deduct points ensuring relegation to Championship and no more. The way our club gets treated by the media's a fucking disgrace and the history clubs fan boys suck it in like a dry sponge.
Click to expand...

Amazing that that rag was a Manchester paper isn't it?
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Occasionally you just unquestionably know which way the wind is blowing from the questions that are being asked, who they are being asked of, and also what questions aren’t being asked.

It’s important to be careful not to routinely read too much into these things, or to hold yourself out as a body language expert and accomplished psychologist, but sometimes you just know.
Click to expand...
And yet - Peter Sutcliffe wasn’t originally charged with murder.
 
Keeper! said:
Even more telling was the PL decision not to punish any club in the latest PSR checks.

I would predict once we are cleared on 115 that all PSR/Financial checks will be scrapped in the PL completely.

350M stadium investment, 9.5 yr Haaland contract and going into the January market like a club possesed are signs that the monkey on our shoulder is long gone.

We have has an incredible ride since the Sheik took over in 2008 and I get the feeling we have seen nothing yet.
Click to expand...
I agree mate but my comment was taking the piss. It’s obviously a good sign. Everyone in the world had worked that out 7 seconds after the info came out yesterday morning .
 
CC1 said:
The club employ our lawyers & barristers. I imagine therefore that our owners are allowed to discuss with them how things seem to have progressed. Everyone that matters will have a good idea of the likely outcome but will be restricted from “leaking” anything
Click to expand...
I think we are leaking it by giving them all the middle finger ;)
 
johnnytapia said:
And yet - Peter Sutcliffe wasn’t originally charged with murder.
Click to expand...
He was iirc. I’m pretty sure the prosecution wanted to accept a plea to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility half way through the trial but because the indictment has already been preferred, the prosecutor (Sir Michael Havers, Nigel’s dad) had to apply to amend the indictment but the Judge refused the application - and so it proceeded as a murder trial and ended on conviction, obviously.

And in any event that’s a criminal trial, I was talking in the context of a judicial tribunal of fact.

Although it’s worth repeating I was once told ‘beware of the nodding juror’, which underlines the point to be careful not to read too much into things!
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Occasionally you just unquestionably know which way the wind is blowing from the questions that are being asked, who they are being asked of, and also what questions aren’t being asked.

It’s important to be careful not to routinely read too much into these things, or to hold yourself out as a body language expert and accomplished psychologist, but sometimes you just know.
Click to expand...
I always remember my dad's story about doing jury service on a complex VAT fraud case. He said that the accused had clearly done what they were alleged to have done, but the prosecution case was so poorly presented that it didn't clear the 'beyond reasonable doubt' barrier.

And of course we've seen the opposite, with bewildering miscarriages of justice being perpetrated due to a poorly-mounted, even negligent, defence.

We should, I suppose, be slightly more confident when a case is presented by two groups of highly qualified and experience lawyers to a panel of experts, who should judge the hearing on the facts presented rather than having their emotions played on.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
He was iirc. I’m pretty sure the prosecution wanted to accept a plea to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility half way through the trial but because the indictment has already been preferred, the prosecutor (Sir Michael Havers, Nigel’s dad) had to apply to amend the indictment but the Judge refused the application.

And in any event that’s a criminal trial, I was talking in the context of a judicial tribunal of fact.

Although it’s worth repeated I was once told ‘beware of the nodding juror’, which underlines the point to be careful not to read too much into things!
Click to expand...
I agree with last paragraph but if City weren’t aware of positive news why not wait till everything public to announce Erling.
Personally I see this as the club sending a clear message to the fans that all is good.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
I always remember my dad's story about doing jury service on a complex VAT fraud case. He said that the accused had clearly done what they were alleged to have done, but the prosecution case was so poorly presented that it didn't clear the 'beyond reasonable doubt' barrier.

And of course we've seen the opposite, with bewildering miscarriages of justice being perpetrated due to a poorly-mounted, even negligent, defence.

We should, I suppose, be slightly more confident when a case is presented by two groups of highly qualified and experience lawyers to a panel of experts, who should judge the hearing on the facts presented rather than having their emotions played on.
Click to expand...
There well established is argument that juries shouldn’t sit on really complex fraud trials, although I’m not convinced personally.
 
Haaland's new contract and our current activity in the transfer market are obvious signs the club are confident. I remain cautiously optimistic, but like everyone I eagerly await the verdict and if we are exonerated my Rag mates are going to get it big time.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
He was iirc. I’m pretty sure the prosecution wanted to accept a plea to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility half way through the trial but because the indictment has already been preferred, the prosecutor (Sir Michael Havers, Nigel’s dad) had to apply to amend the indictment but the Judge refused the application - and so it proceeded as a murder trial and ended on conviction, obviously.

And in any event that’s a criminal trial, I was talking in the context of a judicial tribunal of fact.

Although it’s worth repeating I was once told ‘beware of the nodding juror’, which underlines the point to be careful not to read too much into things!
Click to expand...
Even with jury trials you can get a good feeling for what they’re thinking. Be it through questions or which counsel they’re more engaged by. But as you say with judges it can be completely obvious and I think that’s where we’re at.
 
Maly said:
Yep, Conference winners, followed by League 2, League 1, Championship, then Premier League champs in consecutive seasons
Click to expand...
And we'll win the FA Cup in that first season, followed by Europa league, then we'll clinch the CL just after getting promotion from league 1. Special indeed!
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
He was iirc. I’m pretty sure the prosecution wanted to accept a plea to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility half way through the trial but because the indictment has already been preferred, the prosecutor (Sir Michael Havers, Nigel’s dad) had to apply to amend the indictment but the Judge refused the application - and so it proceeded as a murder trial and ended on conviction, obviously.

And in any event that’s a criminal trial, I was talking in the context of a judicial tribunal of fact.

Although it’s worth repeating I was once told ‘beware of the nodding juror’, which underlines the point to be careful not to read too much into things!
Click to expand...
Ah, I thought the original conviction was diminished responsibility but that got overturned after review.
Your explanation makes more sense.
I’m slightly reticent to read anything into our current transfer/ stadium developments as hubris has a very painful way of smacking you right on the kisser.

True fact btw: Harry Redknapp trial - one of original jurors was named Peter Crouch.

And Pat Jennings, for reasons I’ve never had fully explained was at the early part of Sutcliffe’s trial. Maybe he wanted his gloves back?!?
 
GaudinoMotors said:
I am.
Should be nowhere near them and neither should financially untrained judges. Like physios doing neurology operations.

The recent Cum-Ex a case in point.
Click to expand...
I think the concern is it being the thin end of the wedge. The problem is case hardened, cynical judges applying the criminal standard of proof in an intellectually honest way. I think the conviction rate for such offences would go though the roof, as is suitably demonstrated in Japan.

Maybe some people would see that as a good thing!
 
cityboy2602 said:
And we'll win the FA Cup in that first season, followed by Europa league, then we'll clinch the CL just after getting promotion from league 1. Special indeed!
Click to expand...
And we’d smash every highest and average attendance records in every tier of the English Pyramid upto the PL
 
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