PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

slbsn said:
I agree and I have agreed with Simon Jordan's big point that there is a case to answer. The question is whether a) whether the UEFA was that case b) the case could have been answered without charges. We will see.

And the emails we've seen are genuine - arguing they are not or that they have been materially doctored, goes nowhere.
Click to expand...
I usually take some comfort from your comments and views, albeit sometimes these are sensibly erring on the side of caution.

And occasionally you worry me. This post is one of those moments !
 
Mike S said:
I usually take some comfort from your comments and views, albeit sometimes these are sensibly erring on the side of caution.

And occasionally you worry me. This post is one of those moments !
Click to expand...
You can't read the emails in the CAS document and not see the need for some explanation. Even City have said you need to understand the bigger picture into which these documents fit. I also believe that living in a delusion helps nobody - better to address the problem head on without just saying the emails are fake. They aren't. And the splicing in the UEFA case barely material.
 
slbsn said:
I know it is not a criticism etc but I don't understand this point. Firstly, I don't recall giving any view about the evidential basis of the UEFA case. We had almost no information about that case before CAS. Plus we know for sure, the PL has loads of documents far beyond UEFA. So where does that fit in?

The reality is the investigation is both political and legitimate. Whether the charges are we will see in time.
Click to expand...

The weighting between these two points is the crux but I don’t think we’ll ever know for sure.

I know this isn’t a criminal proceeding but there are hundreds of cases every day where there are legitimate grounds for investigation by police but no charges are put forward because there’s no realistic prospect of prosecution.

What we’re essentially saying here is that the CPS (PL) has gone ahead with a trial against a high profile individual (City) knowing there is little chance of prosecution but have done so because it will damage the reputation of that person (city).

It seems inconceivable in almost every sense, but I just can’t shake the gut feeling that is exactly what has happened in the 115 case primarily because of the emotions involved coupled with ineptitude within the PL leadership.
 
slbsn said:
I agree and I have agreed with Simon Jordan's big point that there is a case to answer. The question is whether a) whether the UEFA was that case b) the case could have been answered without charges. We will see.

And the emails we've seen are genuine - arguing they are not or that they have been materially doctored, goes nowhere.
Click to expand...

slbsn said:
I know it is not a criticism etc but I don't understand this point. Firstly, I don't recall giving any view about the evidential basis of the UEFA case. We had almost no information about that case before CAS. Plus we know for sure, the PL has loads of documents far beyond UEFA. So where does that fit in?

The reality is the investigation is both political and legitimate. Whether the charges are we will see in time.
Click to expand...
Realistically and yes this comment is based on the CAS written reasons it was pretty clear that UEFA had entered the proceedings with a particularly weak and incomplete case and the reality for me was that CAS outcome should have been on a unanimous decision.

I think most would be staggered if the PLs team weren’t far better prepared and therein for me is the point that we simply don’t know what has been uncovered and how that will be interpreted.

As you made reference to the time this case took suggests it’s far from a given that the PLs case was easily dismissed and the fact that both sides had KCs considered experts in fraud is telling.
 
the blue panther said:
You should have tried some eggs - chopped-up - in a cup.
Click to expand...

Ken “Ahhhhhhh, I feel like death warmed up”
Jean “Have you tried eggs chopped up in a cup?”
Ken “Eggs chopped up in a cup? The medical profession must have missed that one”
Jean “Don’t be so sarcastic Kenneth, it works”
Ken “Actually, now I think about it, I was watching ER the other night and the nurse said ‘He’s flat-lining Doctor’ and the doctor replied ‘Well don’t just stand there Nurse, quick, go and fetch some eggs chopped up in a cup”

…later in the episode…

Tanya “You look awful Ken”
Ken “I feel awful”
Joan “Have you tried eggs chopped up in a cup Ken?”
Ken “Bloody hell, not you as well”
Eddie “Oh yeah, it does work. You eat the eggs Ken”
Ken “Oh right, there was me thinking you rub it on your chest”
Eddie (to Joan) “See, I told you it was an easy mistake to make”
 
dubblue said:
Funny how none of the red cartel ever even get close to failing FFP/PSR. Well we know United actually did breach PSR by £75m and got special dispensation from the PL.
Click to expand...
Did somebody who plays in red fail psr? Ergo so this time nobody fails psr? …. Just musing!
 
Mike S said:
I usually take some comfort from your comments and views, albeit sometimes these are sensibly erring on the side of caution.

And occasionally you worry me. This post is one of those moments !
Click to expand...

I don't know why. He is absolutely right.

Of course there is a case to answer. It was partially answered at CAS but the PL investigation covered many more years than the UEFA investigation and presumably uncovered many more pieces of "evidence" requiring explanation than UEFA had. None of that can be controversial.

But none of that makes it easier for the PL to meet the standard of proof than it was for UEFA. They have to provide some sort of evidence that is weightier than the counter-evidence the club will provide. I just don't see how they will be able to do that on the most serious charges. All the heavy artillery is with the club: the witness statements and the third party accounting evidence, for example. I can't see any other outcome than another Mboto Gorge.
 
denislawsbackheel said:
Ken “Ahhhhhhh, I feel like death warmed up”
Jean “Have you tried eggs chopped up in a cup?”
Ken “Eggs chopped up in a cup? The medical profession must have missed that one”
Jean “Don’t be so sarcastic Kenneth, it works”
Ken “Actually, now I think about it, I was watching ER the other night and the nurse said ‘He’s flat-lining Doctor’ and the doctor replied ‘Well don’t just stand there Nurse, quick, go and fetch some eggs chopped up in a cup”

…later in the episode…

Tanya “You look awful Ken”
Ken “I feel awful”
Joan “Have you tried eggs chopped up in a cup Ken?”
Ken “Bloody hell, not you as well”
Eddie “Oh yeah, it does work. You eat the eggs Ken”
Ken “Oh right, there was me thinking you rub it on your chest”
Eddie (to Joan) “See, I told you it was an easy mistake to make”
Click to expand...
I know - absolutely priceless

To the Regiment!!!

:-)
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Depends what the case is.
Click to expand...

:) Of course. And to what extent the various issues were answered during the investigation.

The PL presumably thought that the answers weren't satisfactory and so proceeded. The alternative to that is in pretty serious conspiracy territory, which I have trouble buying, tbh.
 
halfcenturyup said:
:) Of course. And to what extent the various issues were answered during the investigation.

The PL presumably thought that the answers weren't satisfactory and so proceeded. The alternative to that is in pretty serious conspiracy territory, which I have trouble buying, tbh.
Click to expand...
The starting point for any prosecution, or any civil proceedings where proof of criminality is required for a claim to succeed, should never be ‘is there a case to answer?’

If that’s not the case why hasn’t Ferguson faced any charges for the 99 questions?

Because he unquestionably has a case to answer.

What about Liverpool’s allowances for the Anfield redevelopment?

They unquestionably have a case to answer.

It’s a meaningless test in the context of these proceedings.
 
terraloon said:
Realistically and yes this comment is based on the CAS written reasons it was pretty clear that UEFA had entered the proceedings with a particularly weak and incomplete case and the reality for me was that CAS outcome should have been on a unanimous decision.

I think most would be staggered if the PLs team weren’t far better prepared and therein for me is the point that we simply don’t know what has been uncovered and how that will be interpreted.

As you made reference to the time this case took suggests it’s far from a given that the PLs case was easily dismissed and the fact that both sides had KCs considered experts in fraud is telling.
Click to expand...
Don't you read the papers,everything about us gets leaked.
If they had anything new everyman and his dog would have known about it,before the hearing started.
 
Blueknows said:
emails can be doctored , obtained illegally and snippets from them cobbled together taken out of context , hardly a smoking gun considering what theyre accusing us of
Click to expand...
The emails may very well be genuine , but did we act upon them , was the content actually acted upon to gain a financial advantage ?
It’s upto us to disprove boardroom emails from one person/ company to another. Who’s pushing for the investigation is a complete different story.
Without Der Spiegel’s “evidence” this wouldnt be happening.
Proving our innocence, and having to back our innocence with legal documentation is obviously a fucking big can of worms.
Nonetheless, I believe Khaldoon 100%. Clear and obvious he said. If we get found guilty then he’s toast , and nobody can argue with that, do you think our owner will put up with his name being tarnished ? No , trouble is , if we are found guilty then we will never recover from it - even non cooperation in my book just isn’t enough.
Nonetheless, I expect a full non guilty verdict , halfway houses just don’t cut it anymore.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
The starting point for any prosecution, or any civil proceedings where proof of criminality is required for a claim to succeed, should never be ‘is there a case to answer?’

If that’s not the case why hasn’t Ferguson faced any charges for the 99 questions?

Because he unquestionably has a case to answer.

What about Liverpool’s allowances for the Anfield redevelopment?

They unquestionably have a case to answer.

It’s a meaningless test in the context of these proceedings.
Click to expand...
99 ?
 
halfcenturyup said:
:) Of course. And to what extent the various issues were answered during the investigation.

The PL presumably thought that the answers weren't satisfactory and so proceeded. The alternative to that is in pretty serious conspiracy territory, which I have trouble buying, tbh.
Click to expand...
Why did it take the EPL 4 years to finally issues those allegations, going to court with City to keep it disclosed & the judge at the time being scathing of how long it was taking them
 
terraloon said:
Realistically and yes this comment is based on the CAS written reasons it was pretty clear that UEFA had entered the proceedings with a particularly weak and incomplete case and the reality for me was that CAS outcome should have been on a unanimous decision.

I think most would be staggered if the PLs team weren’t far better prepared and therein for me is the point that we simply don’t know what has been uncovered and how that will be interpreted.

As you made reference to the time this case took suggests it’s far from a given that the PLs case was easily dismissed and the fact that both sides had KCs considered experts in fraud is telling.
Click to expand...
The PL were hardly going to employ Mohammed from Lloyd St who gets people off with speeding fines were they?
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
The starting point for any prosecution, or any civil proceedings where proof of criminality is required for a claim to succeed, should never be ‘is there a case to answer?’

If that’s not the case why hasn’t Ferguson faced any charges for the 99 questions?

Because he unquestionably has a case to answer.

What about Liverpool’s allowances for the Anfield redevelopment?

They unquestionably have a case to answer.

It’s a meaningless test in the context of these proceedings.
Click to expand...

I think there’s a case to answer that the Rags would have failed PSR if not given special allowances…

It’s easy this case to answer business……
 
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