PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

This would a difficult position to argue surely?

If there were reasons to begin an investigation (the leaked emails) but this wasn’t satisfactorily answered, that means the PL didn’t have sufficient evidence at their disposal to say one way or another whether City committed mass fraud.

The PL decided to proceed to charge regardless of a lack of evidence to prove guilt of such a serious allegation.

If that serious allegation is consequentially not proven, the course of action by the PL can’t be viewed in any other way than highly reckless.

I’m sure the police and CPS have suspicions that numerous people committed crimes, but if they don’t have a reasonable prospect of conviction, they they don’t just go ahead and charge hoping for the best in court.

Which brings us back to motivation to charge…
The PL pushed ahead with a costly four-year investigation, apparently based on allegations in Der Spiegl which had been comprehensively debunked by the CAS Judges. Since then the PL leadership, and their pals from a small cabal of clubs, have constantly made negative briefings to the media which were designed to damage our club. Meanwhile the Judges' statement from the APT and the published extracts of evidence have proved that the PL wilfully obstructed our attempts to attract sponsorship. The very definition of a bad faith motive.
 
You may be right.

But even CAS criticised the club for withholding information and UEFA had a lot less "evidence" to proceed than the PL presumably had.

There were points at which the PL could have closed the investigation and we can justifiably ask why they didn't, but I don't really see how the PL had any choice other than to proceed with the process in 2023.

I accept I am the only one that thinks this, though. Still, that just means the rest of you are wrong :)

I thought CAS's criticism of us for withholding evidence was wrt us cooperating fully up to a point then stopping cooperation further due to UEFA leaks, citing we'd wait until CAS. and i thought that was why the fine was reduced from £30m to £10m. We admitted as much too. I thought we then shared relevant evidence with CAS. Could be wrong of course.
 
I thought CAS's criticism of us for withholding evidence was wrt us cooperating fully up to a point then stopping cooperation further due to UEFA leaks, citing we'd wait until CAS. and i thought that was why the fine was reduced from £30m to £10m. We admitted as much too. I thought we then shared relevant evidence with CAS. Could be wrong of course.
IIRC , and sometimes I still can, the CAS at one point said that no negative inferences should be drawn from City’s actions and that they were quite sympathetic with them given the leaks from Uefa (or more specifically one of the red cartel involved)
I could be wrong.
 
Ye but that was a little bit different I think we just wanted it over, this one is a witch hunt and Khaldoon wants it done once and for all and our name cleared of everything. I can’t see how we can be done for non cooperation if we win all the other charges they are intrinsically linked, if the evidence shows us not guilty then they have all the evidence.

My guess is there’ll be “time limits” we should have supplied info by so they’ll do us for that.

So essentially the breach would be “cooperated but not within the dealines we set” rather than straight up noncooperation.

Which will of course give every opposition **** a get out as “you blagged a load of extra time so you could make it look like you hadn’t cheated”.

Got it written all over it.
 
Last edited:
This would a difficult position to argue surely?

If there were reasons to begin an investigation (the leaked emails) but this wasn’t satisfactorily answered, that means the PL didn’t have sufficient evidence at their disposal to say one way or another whether City committed mass fraud.

The PL decided to proceed to charge regardless of a lack of evidence to prove guilt of such a serious allegation.

If that serious allegation is consequentially not proven, the course of action by the PL can’t be viewed in any other way than highly reckless.

I’m sure the police and CPS have suspicions that numerous people committed crimes, but if they don’t have a reasonable prospect of conviction, they they don’t just go ahead and charge hoping for the best in court.

Which brings us back to motivation to charge…
Be interesting to see if the PL have to get a “charging decision” from another body (a la the CPS in criminal cases) or do they just make that call themselves?
 
Well a lot of people on social media need to take some basic maths lessons. 9 and a half years is 114 months not 115. Gutter press yet spout more untruths about us.
nowhere near 130 in any case ;)
 
Well a lot of people on social media need to take some basic maths lessons. 9 and a half years is 114 months not 115. Gutter press yet spout more untruths about us.
Ye but 115 sounds better let’s wind the fuckers up!
 
How do you know?
From Norton Rose Fulbright (about the Covid season, but still relevant):

"In the vast majority of player contracts in the Premier League and the English Football League (EFL), the expiry date will be 30 June of the final year of the contract. In normal circumstances, all domestic and European competitions are completed in advance of June 30 so as to avoid players’ contracts expiring prior to the end of the competitive season."
 
I don’t disagree with your view on the wider, long game the club are playing, but they failed to sufficiently control the narrative in the press after the CAS judgment and are at risk of repeating this again if the decision goes our way; and I don’t agree that the press cannot ignore what Khaldoon says afterwards unless it’s sufficiently incendiary. If he throws a big, fuck off Molotov cocktail into the middle then I agree that will take hold, but if he simply talks in riddles and euphemisms (as he has done previously) then I fear it will simply blend into the background.

At the end of the day, the club will do what’s best to meet its long term strategic goals, which will most likely not elide with the wishes of us supporters.
i am by no means an expert on the behaviour of arabic people,
but during my time in marok i have learned things about them,
they have kindly explained their reasoning,
and incendiary doesn't seem to be their game.

there is no desire for short-term gain.
that approach is, they say, the fool's way.

let the losers shout their claims from the highest mountain.
at first it will resonate,
but there is no point in responding to an echo,
it will fade away soon enough.

the real winners play the long game.
they knowingly smile at (and with) their enemies.
a strategy that unnerves the enemy.

i think it was sven who said something along the lines of,
and i paraphrase here...
out-nice the fuckers!

it is impossible to, as you say, sufficiently control the narrative.

as my grandfather always said...
never argue with a fool.
he will bring you down to his level and beat you with experience.
 
From Norton Rose Fulbright (about the Covid season, but still relevant):

"In the vast majority of player contracts in the Premier League and the English Football League (EFL), the expiry date will be 30 June of the final year of the contract. In normal circumstances, all domestic and European competitions are completed in advance of June 30 so as to avoid players’ contracts expiring prior to the end of the competitive season."

You might well be right but we simply don’t know mate.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top