PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Protein Junkie]

I am going to take a wild stab and go for late Friday afternoon on the 21st March for the ruling.
Late Friday to bury our good news and it’s a day before my birthday.
If it was an adverse judgement it would be out 10am on the Monday before we play the Rags in April.

 

[whitenoise]

Child support agency ?

They've got nothing else to do since Kyle left so are just starting rumours now.

 

[Citizen of Legoland]

I heard off a mate of mine who has a niece that works at the CSA, that he has been seeing one of the female physios. Don't know how true ot is though. But who gives a flying one though.

Free physio for any ache or pain? If I was in his boat I’d be doing the same.

 

[Keeper!]

What are you basing that on mate?

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

However confident we are, we will all be shitting it as the verdict comes out. Just remember to read the detail, not the bollox that they want you to believe.

Too true. Despite being wholly confident about the CAS verdict I was shitting it from 9am that morning.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

@slbsn on x ... The FT has an interview with Richard Masters today. This clip appears to confirm that the initial 115 decision is liability only (liable or not) and not sanctioning or "sentencing" as a well known manager has referenced. NB: separate process not separate independent panel

https://archive.ph/TfDtg

 

[The perfect fumble]

https://archive.ph/TfDtg

Written by a dipper....

https://x.com/search?q=#LFC from:@MattGarrahan&src=typed_query&f=live

 

[wolviedinho]

@slbsn on x ... The FT has an interview with Richard Masters today. This clip appears to confirm that the initial 115 decision is liability only (liable or not) and not sanctioning or "sentencing" as a well known manager has referenced. NB: separate process not separate independent panel

Whats the point of this piece? Its says nothing of note.

The timing is interesting just as we are about to win the 115 case.

Nothing about the motives behind the unlawful rules?

Seems nothing more than a puff piece but I still don’t know why? He is clearly out of his depth and has been played like a fiddle by the top teams.

 

[crystal_mais]

But you do know, if you can say that Pep definitely knows and he's certainly had a positive steer.....:-)

The only people that really know are the panel. I think Pep has been given a view on how things went. I still won't be ready to order a bottle of decent champagne yet.

 

[jaiguruKun]

Whats the point of this piece? Its says nothing of note.

The timing is interesting just as we are about to win the 115 case.

Nothing about the motives behind the unlawful rules?

Seems nothing more than a puff piece but I still don’t know why? He is clearly out of his depth and has been played like a fiddle by the top teams.

It's bizarre that the authour would allow Masters to talk about enforcement of PL rules without even bothering to mention that a whole raft of them have just been found to be void and unlawful.

 

[KS55]

"Lets all go to the stone in"

Is it home or away??

 

[wolviedinho]

It's bizarre that the authour would allow Masters to talk about enforcement of PL rules without even bothering to mention that a whole raft of them have just been found to be void and unlawful.

Exactly!

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

Written by a dipper....

https://x.com/search?q=#LFC from:@MattGarrahan&src=typed_query&f=live

The third paragraph describes City as "Abu Dhabi" owned. If the FT can't even get that basic fact right then there is no point trusting anything they write. Another hack who can't use Google.

 

[cheekybids]

https://archive.ph/TfDtg

It’s a strange article. Normally it’s creating a narrative but it just seems a little puff piece PR so I assume it’s been organised for Masters rather than the premier league itself.

Another thing that annoyed me….

How come all are billionaires but only the Yanks are described as that…..

“whose owners range from Gulf petrostates and US billionaires to professional gamblers and a Greek shipping tycoon.”

 

[Coatigan]

For those who want to read it. As I understand it, the second (sanction) hearing wasn't a quote from Masters, but a statement of "fact" from the writer, but I suppose the FT are credible?

Article quote:

It is two years since Manchester City was accused of more than 100 breaches of Premier League rules, with the club and its rivals waiting for an independent commission to rule on the charges. The identities of the three-person panel have been kept secret, presumably to avoid them having to endure their own billboard campaign (or worse). A verdict could come any week. “I literally cannot say a word about it,” Masters says.

A judgment would not mean the end of the saga, which has cast a shadow over several seasons of City’s success on the pitch. If the club is found to have breached the rules, the independent panel will not decide on sanctions: that will be a separate process and the club — and the league itself — will have the right to appeal.

So the dispute will rumble on and fans will, presumably, continue to cry foul.

End article quote.

So either Masters said he could say literally nothing about it but then literally did, or didn't say anything and the writer just went with the flow.

The rest of the article was a bit of a nothing burger, tbh.

Stefan did always insist this, that any 'punishment' would be a separate hearing, only if this panel finds the charges viable. For all the rush to point out when his claims/guesses appear to turn out otherwise, worth acknowledging this.

Back to the point itself. There are two possible timelines then, it seems.

If it turns out the charges are mince, we are cleared, and the PL either appeal, or it ends there.

If it turns out some or all of the charges are deemed viable, then if we don't appeal it presumably goes to determining a sentence. If we do, that sounds like the appeal would need concluded, before it can be passed on to sentencing. Which can then also be appealed to be reduced etc.

Basically, being found innocent is best for all, as it finally puts an end to it. Anything else, and we are talking potentially another year or two at least.

 

[M12Blue]

Stefan did always insist this, that any 'punishment' would be a separate hearing only if this panel finds the charges viable. For all the rush to point out when his claims/guesses appear to turn out otherwise, worth acknowledging this.

Back to the point itself. There are two possible timelines then, it seems.

If it turns out the charges are mince, we are cleared, and the PL either appeal, or it ends there.

If it turns out some or all of the charges are deemed viable, then if we don't appeal it presumably goes to determining a sentence. If we do, that sounds like the appeal would need concluded, before it can be passed on to sentencing. Which can then also he appealed to he reduced.

Basically, being found innocent is best for all, as it finally puts an end to it. Anything else, and we are talking potentially another year or two at least.

I would be surprised if found innocent it ends there. Another year or two of this shit, christ

 

[freshie]

David Dein wants the charges dropped

 

[Coatigan]

I would be surprised if found innocent it ends there. Another year or two of this shit, christ

I would be surprised if the PL appealed it, if we were found innocent. It would be a terrible look, imagine the optics.

Not to mention the money involved, on top of already spent.

They would really need to be convinced we have done something wrong, or really vindictive, to appeal a review by the panel that comes out favourable for us.

And either or both would Still be a terrible look.

 

[Bluewonder]

Stefan did always insist this, that any 'punishment' would be a separate hearing only if this panel finds the charges viable. For all the rush to point out when his claims/guesses appear to turn out otherwise, worth acknowledging this.

Back to the point itself. There are two possible timelines then, it seems.

If it turns out the charges are mince, we are cleared, and the PL either appeal, or it ends there.

If it turns out some or all of the charges are deemed viable, then if we don't appeal it presumably goes to determining a sentence. If we do, that sounds like the appeal would need concluded, before it can be passed on to sentencing. Which can then also he appealed to he reduced.

Basically, being found innocent is best for all, as it finally puts an end to it. Anything else, and we are talking potentially another year or two at least.

Could this be why the club is so confident? They've been told a separate hearing isn't/ won't be required?

 

[Coatigan]

Could this be why the club is so confident? They've been told a separate hearing isn't/ won't be required?

No idea, and any guessing I might do would be completely meaningless. I like the thought though.