PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Coatigan said:
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 bynthe panel that comes out favourable for us.

And either or both would Still be a terrible look.
Click to expand...
Yeah that's how I see it. The footballing world are fed up of this. The PL appealing against an innocence finding would put them in the firing line instead of City.
I just cannot see them continuing this even if they are just trying to destroy City's reputation.




If we have lost the case though, and sentencing needs to happen, would there be any signs of that sentencing meeting happening, or signals that it isn't required?
 
Coatigan said:
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 bynthe panel that comes out favourable for us.

And either or both would Still be a terrible look.
Click to expand...

Considering they were pressured into bringing this against us, you'd hope they wouldn't bow to pressure to then appeal it. This has been awful for the PL. They've already had their pants pulled down by Leicester and by us in separate action. They need to try and save face and the best way to do so is to protect their product by allowing focus to be on the football and not the boardroom.

Picking up on your other posts, I really hope it's done and dusted and we don't have to deal with appeals or further sentencing hearings. I've always struggled with the non-cooperation charges, because much like with CAS there's an expectation we provided the governing body with everything they request, even if we don't believe it to be necessary or feel there is corruption/leaking going on within the organisation. If information was requested and we didn't provide it but then brought it to light before the panel it's not likely we'll succeed in arguing we did cooperate. Hard to know the ins and outs of it, but I would anticipate we withheld information to ensure we could present it at the right time and in the right context - which is what we did with UEFA.
 
Coatigan said:
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 bynthe panel that comes out favourable for us.

And either or both would Still be a terrible look.
Click to expand...
The "appeal" is not a second go. It is not a second chance to "retry" the case. Grounds for appeal exist only if the law/rules have been applied wrongly, as in the case of Leicester City which was sanctioned under PL rules when the club was not in the PL. Thus it is unlikely either party will be granted leave to appeal. Of course, if the IC made an award which was clearly perverse leave to appeal would be granted. This is also unlikely.
 
Coatigan said:
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.
Click to expand...
Just to be clear, I didn't insist this. I merely explained that this was the explanation of what The Lawyer magazine had discovered and that they had been a very good source of detail. It does now look correct because I doubt the FT just wrote that without it being told it by the PL at that interview.

It is by no means automatic that this would have been a split (between liability and sanction) hearing but makes sense here. Question will be if the sanction hearing is held before an appeal (if any). I think it is likely it will be but not sure.
 
Last edited:
Pingu the Penguin said:
Its almost as if the financial controls being operated in football are anti-competitive, prevent legitimate owner investment, and are being used for purposes that are nefarious, isn't it? :)
Click to expand...
I think this is an arguable case, but it has never been rested in court. I suspect the verdict would be that the rules can be justified on the grounds of competitive balance because they do not prohibit or limit investment on infrastructure, youth and women's football and other areas, though they do restrict investment in playing staff. The courts would have to decide if this limit was sufficient to nullify the rules or what changes would legitimise them.
 
slbsn said:
Just to be clear, I didn't insist this. I merely explained that this was the explanation of what The Lawyer magazine had discovered and that they had been a very good source of detail. It does now look correct because I doubt the FT just wrote that without it being told it by the PL at that interview.

It is by no means automatic that this would have been a split (between liability and sanction) hearing but makes sense here. Question will be if the sanction hearing is held before an appeal (if any). I think it is likely it will be but not sure.
Click to expand...
Poor wording on my part, possibly poor understanding too. Thanks for clarifying, presumably for the benefit of others too.

And yes I know there is an open goal here with a 'a win for stefan, but stefan says it's not' joke just gaping.
 
slbsn said:
Just to be clear, I didn't insist this. I merely explained that this was the explanation of what The Lawyer magazine had discovered and that they had been a very good source of detail. It does now look correct because I doubt the FT just wrote that without it being told it by the PL at that interview.

It is by no means automatic that this would have been a split (between liability and sanction) hearing but makes sense here. Question will be if the sanction hearing is held before an appeal (if any). I think it is likely it will be but not sure.
Click to expand...
Releasing the liability decision and then leaving a gap for the sanction would see the world go even more mad guessing possible sanctions than it already has done.

Would they consider this as being a reason to publicly release liability and sanction together if they even can do that?
 
rice10 said:
Releasing the liability decision and then leaving a gap for the sanction would see the world go even more mad guessing possible sanctions than it already has done.

Would they consider this as being a reason to publicly release liability and sanction together if they even can do that?
Click to expand...
The media have been peddling the "100 point deduction , expulsion from the league , relegation" from day 1 so wouldnt make a difference to how its already been reported
 
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