PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Rammy Blue]

I heard a little snippet that supports the possibility of a positive outcome, from one of the legal teams.

Any crumb of positivity is always welcome.

 

[citizen_maine]

Well if Ceferin & Masters can go back to their "independent" panels and tell them they've essentially by-passed them in the middle of an investigation and arranged a deal, then clearly they can't be that independent can they?

But isn't the point that they want a negotiated settlement? If the two sides can agree to that then it doesn't/shouldn't matter when or where in the process that it happens

 

[johnny crossan]

Any crumb of positivity is always welcome.

little by little, the good news seeps out....;-)

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

But isn't the point that they want a negotiated settlement? If the two sides can agree to that then it doesn't/shouldn't matter when or where in the process that it happens

I understand how that can happen in a court case, where the protagonists are facing each other, or in mediation/arbitration. But when you're claiming, as Masters did, that it's out of your hands once it goes to the IC then I struggle with the concept of the originator of the charges suddenly deciding they feel they can offer a settlement.

It screams of the PL realising their case is weak and looking for a face-saving compromise.

 

[Holcombe bloo]

Well if Ceferin & Masters can go back to their "independent" panels and tell them they've essentially by-passed them in the middle of an investigation and arranged a deal, then clearly they can't be that independent can they?

Let’s hope the prem case is so weak and our evidence so overwhelming that even a compromised panel can’t fudge it.

 

[manimanc]

I heard a little snippet that supports the possibility of a positive outcome, from one of the legal teams.

Like. Like . Like.

I like. :)

 

[JASR]

I think an adapted rendition of 10 green bottles is in order.

115 charges hanging over our heads,
115 charges hanging over our heads,
And if one malicious charge should be thrown out for lack of any clear irrefutable coherent evidence,
They’ll be 114 charging hanging over our heads.
Etc

Line 3 needs a bit of tightening up…

 

[DJBusinesscake]

I heard a little snippet that supports the possibility of a positive outcome, from one of the legal teams.

I believe this, because I want to believe this.

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

I understand how that can happen in a court case, where the protagonists are facing each other, or in mediation/arbitration. But when you're claiming, as Masters did, that it's out of your hands once it goes to the IC then I struggle with the concept of the originator of the charges suddenly deciding they feel they can offer a settlement.

It screams of the PL realising their case is weak and looking for a face-saving compromise.

For that reason I hope we tell them to stick their face saving compromise due to the shit they have thrown at and dragged the club through.

 

[Goodlove]

For the last week or so this case jumps 10 pages overnight, someone then says "what's happened?" and the answer is "nothing."

Which made me think of several other things that didn't happen, that at least at the beginning of the process many thought would happen.

What's clear, for instance, is that the outcome to all of this will be decided by the as-yet-unnamed panel. To put the same point another way, there is not going to be any kind of last-minute plea bargain, settlement, compromise, call it what you will. This one has gone all the way.

That might have come as a surprise to many who commented on the charges at the beginning of the process. There were lots of people speculating that some shady deal might be done involving a substantial fine and a modest points deduction, but no stripping of titles or relegation-guaranteeing deductions.

Bearing in mind the massive stakes on either side, those predictions of some sort of settlement seemed highly plausible. The early media headlines involved such phrases as "City fight for Premier League survival" and "scandal" (even before a word of evidence had been heard). For the Premier League, too, this was high-stakes litigation. The bringing of such a massive number of charges over such a prolonged period of alleged wrongdoing makes them look vindictive and amateurish if they cannot make at least a substantial majority of them stick. As Simon Mullock pointed out, Richard Masters' position seems utterly untenable if the charges are substantially dismissed.

To say nothing of the massive costs burden likely to fall on the losing party.

So what inferences can be drawn from the fact that no deal has been reached?

It seems to me it is one of three things. First, it could be a sign of City's supreme confidence in their position. This would not be unprecedented: it has been widely rumoured that Ceferin himself came to the Etihad to broker a deal in relation to the UEFA FFP charges, well before UEFA imposed its initial swingeing punishment. City, if the rumours are to be believed, turned it down flat. Likewise, in this case, the absence of a deal might pint to supreme confidence on City's part.

The second possibility is that the PL are equally confident: but even if they were confident of a result, it would strike me as surprising that no deal has been done. If you are prosecuting a case such as this, even if the evidence seems strong there are still many reasons why you might want to offer a deal that involves taking a bird in the hand. Offer a lower punishment, take the certainty of a conviction as opposed to the uncertainty of a trial. And City, if such a deal had been offered in circumstances where the evidence was effectively unanswerable, would have been foolish not to take the deal.

One thing we know about all this is that City's directors are not fools.

Which leads to the third possibility, that the PL recognises that it's case is weak, but ploughs on regardless, even though defeat is inevitable. Why would the PL do that? One possibility is that the clubs who are widely suspected of making this happen in the first place do not want a settlement, even if the victory they crave is unlikely. Many have suggested that the process is the punishment. That view is not inconsistent with the PL dragging its case to a tribunal only to receive the mother of all drubbings.

Another thought that circulated widely at the time the charges were announced, related to the first point, was that the Government would step in. Accusing some very senior figures within the Abu Dhabi government of fraud over a 9 year period was not something that was likely to be received with equanimity in Abu Dhabi itself. We know the government stepped in to put the PL under pressure to allow the Saudi takeover of Newcastle, and we know the charges have been discussed at high level between the foreign office and our embassy in the UAE. We also know that when the last government published the bill to introduce an independent regulator, in approving takeovers one of the things they were to have regard to was the UK's trade and foreign policy. Those requirements were dropped when the bill was re-introduced after the 2024 election, but it is not fanciful to suspect that the government brought whatever influence it might have to bear to ensure that an embarrassing and damaging tribunal hearing did not threaten the substantial Abu Dhabi investments within the UK.

Again, this has not happened. We saw that the PL, under pressure from the redshirts and Tottenham Poodle to block the Saudi takeover, eventually buckled when the government brought its weight to bear. It would be surprising if the last government in particular, coming to the end of its term and desperate to avoid more bad economic news had adopted an entirely laissez-faire attitude towards all this. And when you've got the redshirts et al telling you what to do on the one side, and the government telling you what to do on the other, there's probably only one winner.

So what do we make of it? I haven't got time to set out my thoughts more fully as I’m about to hit the M1 in advance of the Brighton game. We will know soon enough, but nothing screams "confidence" like refusing to take a deal.

Especially if the PL has been pressured into offering one.

I think you’ve hit the nail on the head with your ‘the process is the punishment’ statement.

The reputational damage has been done and, I believe, in some opposition fans eyes will never be undone. To them we are cheats and probably always will be, regardless of the verdict.

 

[Stoned Rose]

I heard a little snippet that supports the possibility of a positive outcome, from one of the legal teams.

Go on then….

 

[BlueMoonz1977]

For that reason I hope we tell them to stick their face saving compromise due to the shit they have thrown at and dragged the club through.

The sentiment of all blues fans...and one hopefully the club and the powers that be also uphold.

Fuck any kind of face saving compromise that the pl might be touting

Fuck masters, the red cartel and the hateful 8

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

I heard a little snippet that supports the possibility of a positive outcome, from one of the legal teams.

Firstly, that is not acceptable without also posting a cryptic music video with no further actual evidence.
Secondly, once @gordondaviesmoustache has returned from lunch I expect he will have something to say about your use of the phrase 'legal teams'.
That aside, thankyou for the snippet.

 

[Academica]

I heard a little snippet that supports the possibility of a positive outcome, from one of the legal teams.

Which legal team?

 

[Father Paul]

Any crumb of positivity is always welcome.

Look the worst that can happen is that we are relegated. We simply make our way back which we need to do anyway. Our form since October is not much above relegation level. We are City, we will survive whatever happens, so no need to worry.

 

[DelToro]

I

Which legal team?

Eversheds Sunday 11.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Firstly, that is not acceptable without also posting a cryptic music video with no further actual evidence.
Secondly, once @gordondaviesmoustache has returned from lunch I expect he will have something to say about your use of the phrase 'legal teams'.
That aside, thankyou for the snippet.

Just had a very nice bacon and egg sandwich so will be skipping lunch today, but thanks for the heads up on the deployment of that sinfully wank, small-time expression.

 

[Big Dave Watson]

Which legal team?

Exactly.

He says 'One' of the legal teams. It's tongue in cheek basically.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Excellent summary but it doesn’t make me feel particularly confident. Indeed, it now feels as if the club have taken a huge risk.
Still, I’m up & down every day on this issue. One day I read something that inspires confidence, the next a contradictory view appears.
Wish it was over

I prefer my explanation that, after the PL continued with their investigation following the CAS decision, the club have cleverly manipulated the PL into going through this whole process to get it finalised once and for all.

I have a few reasons for thinking that but I won't repeat them here as I don't think anyone else agrees with me :)

But there are two questions to which I am hoping we will find the answer once the dust has settled on the judgment:

Why did the PL continue with the investigation once CAS had concluded. The easy answer is rival pressure, but really?

Why did the PL continue with the disciplinary process in February 2023? That is when I don't really think they had a choice. And that is where my original point comes in. I think they didn't have a choice because the club put them in that position.

So, I am not worrying.

If I am right, the club are extraordinarily confident even in some of the less serious areas where I don't think we have enough information to come to a conclusion ourselves, such as Fordham and Toure. That's good enough for me.

And if I am wrong well, what the fuck, it won't be the first time :D

Hope that helps.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Just had a very nice bacon and egg sandwich so will be skipping lunch today, but thanks for the heads up on the deployment of that sinfully wank, small-time expression.

Correct, we all know it's "legal eagles".