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.
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.
- 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.
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.
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.
