We don’t know the answers from the club weren’t satisfactory. After seeing how we were treated in the APT hearing, it’s possible the response should have satisfied.
You are suggesting the PL received evidence from the club that was sufficient to counter the allegations, but the PL went ahead with a hugely expensive disciplinary process anyway? You may be right, of course, but it's a step too far for me, tbh.
Anyway, I think it's very unlikely for the reasons I have set out previously.
I’m suggesting that the level of evidence provided was sufficient with the level of evidence that the premier league had of wrongdoing.
Going ahead with a hugely expensive disciplinary process that was further complicated with an extraordinary amount of charges, wrongly communicated & leaked to bad faith actors shows that the process had not been thought through, certainly not with a commercial view.
So I don’t think it being a hugely expensive disciplinary process adds weight to the argument anymore than “115….. must be guilty of something!”
I know you’ve analysed it & I love the points raised by you & the solicitors but I think there at times is a little too much respect that they were;
i. Acting in good faith
ii. Competent
Not long now.
We’re on page 8534 asanything happened yet
Fair enough. And, as you say, we will find out soon enough.
I’m suggesting that the level of evidence provided was sufficient with the level of evidence that the premier league had of wrongdoing.
Going ahead with a hugely expensive disciplinary process that was further complicated with an extraordinary amount of charges, wrongly communicated & leaked to bad faith actors shows that the process had not been thought through, certainly not with a commercial view.
So I don’t think it being a hugely expensive disciplinary process adds weight to the argument anymore than “115….. must be guilty of something!”
I know you’ve analysed it & I love the points raised by you & the solicitors but I think there at times is a little too much respect that they were;
i. Acting in good faith
ii. Competent
Not long now.
I agree. Too much faith in an oppressive system from some on here. It would appear they're experiencing Stockholm syndrome.
Thanks Stefan and that's my worry - i had a quick look at what had been published and those emails taken in separate context are quite incriminating.I agree and I have agreed with Simon Jordan's big point that there is a case to answer. The question is whether a) 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.
I'll be honest with you - the emails that were published after CAS taken in isolation looked quite serious. Its then upto us to answer the questions. I haven't paid massive interest into the details of the case and the emails etc, mainly taken a view that there is a witch hunt and we are not guilty and as we are getting closer started to get nervous, hence looked up the emails etcemails 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
I'm busy so not paid too much attention to the details.How long were you in jail and when did they release you ?
Exactly.The post office displayed incompetence at every level of every stage in their investigations by starting with the premise they must be guilty. Once you start with that don’t be surprised where it will take you & how many you can drag along the journey. How many experienced, educated, qualified, highly respected people failed to ask the question “what if they didn’t do it.”
Not 1 story has been written that possibly City haven’t done what they are accused of, surely that’s incompetence. No one has displayed an open mind.
Part of the reason I'm convinced our case is more a witch-hunt than a genuine concern for upholding rulesi without fear or favour s that senior people at the club believe it is and have told me so. But you could argue that they would say that.The post office displayed incompetence at every level of every stage in their investigations by starting with the premise they must be guilty. Once you start with that don’t be surprised where it will take you & how many you can drag along the journey. How many experienced, educated, qualified, highly respected people failed to ask the question “what if they didn’t do it.”
Not 1 story has been written that possibly City haven’t done what they are accused of, surely that’s incompetence. No one has displayed an open mind.
The e-mails published in Der Spiegel looked quite serious too - if interpreted in a certain way - yet CAS said they amounted to zero evidence of wrongdoing. What appeared post-CAS was just more of the same shite.I'll be honest with you - the emails that were published after CAS taken in isolation looked quite serious. Its then upto us to answer the questions. I haven't paid massive interest into the details of the case and the emails etc, mainly taken a view that there is a witch hunt and we are not guilty and as we are getting closer started to get nervous, hence looked up the emails etc
I'm so grateful that you bring up these points and obviously we all learn by getting an accountants view or interpretation of legal matters. Obviously thanks to those who may not agree with your points as well.Fair enough. And, as you say, we will find out soon enough.
Completely agreeAs I've posted before, for the first time in March 2023, I've always felt there's a fundamental dichotomy here. IMO, City's confidence about having irrefutable evidence and the entirely reasonable assumption that the PL wouldn't have accused the club in this way without being confident of having a strong case are mutually exclusive.
One or two people have posted with hypotheses as to how both propositions could co-exist, but there's nothing I find at all convincing (others, might, I suppose). Anyway, my view on what we can reasonably infer at this stage is as follows.
Even in the light of all that, I see only two possible options: either City are correct in the club's assertion to the effect that we will be able to demonstrate its innocence of all major charges, while the PL has pursued a process based on accusations it isn't likely to be able to substantiate to the required standard of proof; or the PL has pursued a process based on accusations it has at least a reasonable prospect of substantiating, and City's confidence as stated above is misplaced.
- Once the emails were published, the PL had an obligation to investigate, as the published emails are sufficient to raise the issue of potential wrongdoing, albeit that they aren't close to being conclusive evidence of it.
- Given the PL's wider investigatory powers, it was entitled not to satisfy itself with the CAS appeal determination with regard to the results of the UEFA proceedings, especially as new emails appeared thereafter.
- The PL's investigatory powers should have been exercised with respect to matters of legitimate interest based on the information it had about MCFC, rather than a so-called fishing expedition with a wider scope aimed at finding any wrongdoing (including concerning matters not previously alleged or suspected) on the club's part.
- The PL and City did have High Court hearings aimed at settling areas of dispute with regard to the investigation, so one presumes that the investigation was ultimately carried out in a way the court was satisfied with and we needn't have concerns about the scenario.
- The PL has clearly put great effort into winning this case, given the time the investigation took, the length of the eventual hearing before the Panel, the eminence and specialisms of the lawyers representing the PL before the Panel, and the vast cost of the entire exercise, running into tens of millions.
- One wouldn't ordinarily expect an authority in the PL's permission to pursue a process that would result in a hearing before a Panel such as this one by making a series of accusations that it doesn't believe it has a reasonable chance of substantiating.
I know where I'd place my money. The PL has faced a difficult task to meet the necessary standard of proof with regard to the matters it needs to prove, and it's not easy to see where that evidence will come from or how the PL could realistically have procured the evidence they need. In addition, what we've called on here the 'soft signals' all point in one way, which offers a degree of comfort to us even though it's only a limited one.
That said, although I haven't really been in practice as a lawyer for a while, my previous training and professional experience has made me cautious. As a result, I'm certainly not going to give a definitive opinion on evidence I haven't seen that's outside the public domain. The case, as ever, turns on the evidence and no one on here can yet know for sure where it points.
Not quite what CAS said to be completely fair.The e-mails published in Der Spiegel looked quite serious too - if interpreted in a certain way - yet CAS said they amounted to zero evidence of wrongdoing. What appeared post-CAS was just more of the same shite.
You're perfectly correct that no one on here knows what the evidence is that's been presented so we're largely all guessing.As I've posted before, for the first time in March 2023, I've always felt there's a fundamental dichotomy here. IMO, City's confidence about having irrefutable evidence and the entirely reasonable assumption that the PL wouldn't have accused the club in this way without being confident of having a strong case are mutually exclusive.
Part of the reason I'm convinced our case is more a witch-hunt than a genuine concern for upholding rulesi without fear or favour s that senior people at the club believe it is and have told me so. But you could argue that they would say that.
But then you look at the PL's actions in other situations and you can only conclude they really aren't bothered about upholding rules.
That doesn't shout that the PL is an organisation whose primary purpose or values are protection of its own rules, or even the law of the land, at the expense of favouritism towards or discrimination against certain clubs.
- The illegal Liverpool access to our scouting database. Regardless of our security or lack of it, they broke the law of the land when they did that, as well as core PL rules around behaviour towards other clubs. Yet it was hushed up, rather than being handed over to the police, as it should have been. I imagine they had pressure brought on them not to do that and to settle quietly. And when it all did come to light, their excuse was 'it was too long ago'.
- Their treatment of Leicester, where the tribunal appointed by them eventually found their rules were imprecise enough to overturn the penalty imposed by the original tribunal. Instead of accepting that, and ensuring the rule were watertight, the rumour is they'll appeal.
- The APT rules, where they 100% knew exclusion of soft loans was likely to be illegal, yet went ahead with some of the member clubs' wishes to exclude them. It was also quite clear from the partial judgement that some clubs felt we were in breach of IAS 24, and that's why those rules were brought in.