PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Now watch as when City get cleared, no one will place in "Public Apology", and then its Business as usual
Scaring Europe to Death said:
This all reminds me of the build up to the 50th anniversary of Munich and the media supporting the rags holier than thou attitude, whilst conveniently ignoring that City had never abused Arsene Wenger or celebrated Leeds fans being killed in Istanbul.

We were slandered every day for 6 weeks, but when it finally arrived and we respected the minute's silence, did we get 6 weeks of apologies?

Did we fuck. Just a sense of anti climax.
Click to expand...
 
halfcenturyup said:
I have posited before that, in February 2023, the PL had allegations against the club that weren't adequately countered.

So they had to choose whether to refer the allegations to the disciplinary process, or to drop the whole thing. Dropping the allegations when they weren't properly countered would be a terrible look. Especially as the PL knew the club had previously provided relevant evidence (relating to third parties, for example) to CAS previously.

I am not at all surprised the PL referred the allegations and I am not at all surprised they included non-cooperation.

It's entirely possible the club's counter evidence will disprove all the other allegations, but that the club loses on the non-cooperation allegation. I am hoping not and I suspect there is a good argument against it, but it is entirely possible.
Click to expand...
Is the evidence city presented at cas re the eufa charges to rebut the charges in the public domain? If it is I presume the PL at least looked at it, if they did and they are using these and still decided to go ahead with the charges then they would seem on the surface to be even more desperate than we thought, unless they just used the time barred charges although I believe this was addressed by cas at the time and they stated there was no evidence to uphold these charges anyway, that’s all on the assumption that some/all of the eufa charges are part of the 115 of course.
 
flook said:
Pretty much exactly where we were when you went overseas, and it doesn't really matter when that was
Click to expand...
A couple of years ago, I was travelling to Wales with my family. There had been an accident on the motorway, and we hit some heavy traffic. When the Mrs. woke after a two-hour kip, she asked me where we were. I replied that we were a hundred yards down the road from where she had fallen asleep. That's how it feels here.
 
I hope we do go for Spitty, take him to the cleaners, lose his money, keys to his house and car, all possessions he owns, lose job at Sky, the full fucking works.

He be selling programmes or half n half scarves outside Klanfield for a living then, trying to jib in for last 10 mins of every home match.

I hate that fucking prick with a passion
 
meeesh said:
I hope we do go for Spitty, take him to the cleaners, lose his money, keys to his house and car, all possessions he owns, lose job at Sky, the full fucking works.

He be selling programmes or half n half scarves outside Klanfield for a living then, trying to jib in for last 10 mins of every home match.

I hate that fucking prick with a passion
Click to expand...
So, just back to a normal scouser then?
 
meeesh said:
I hope we do go for Spitty, take him to the cleaners, lose his money, keys to his house and car, all possessions he owns, lose job at Sky, the full fucking works.

He be selling programmes or half n half scarves outside Klanfield for a living then, trying to jib in for last 10 mins of every home match.

I hate that fucking prick with a passion
Click to expand...
*Note to self, never piss meeesh off...
 
I think a lot of you should simply stop caring what pundits and fans of other clubs think about us. We love who we are, we have won everything we wanted to and because of that we have gotten enough pride, confidence and arrogance to not be bothered what others think about us anymore. There used to be a time when that worked but we simply grew too big for that. We don't need to beg to be appreciated, leave that to the dippers. Remember, their dreams are our reality.
 
Anyone be so kind to summarise the latest?

Can’t get a min today to sit starring at this thread -:)
 
blue is best said:
Is the evidence city presented at cas re the eufa charges to rebut the charges in the public domain? If it is I presume the PL at least looked at it, if they did and they are using these and still decided to go ahead with the charges then they would seem on the surface to be even more desperate than we thought, unless they just used the time barred charges although I believe this was addressed by cas at the time and they stated there was no evidence to uphold these charges anyway, that’s all on the assumption that some/all of the eufa charges are part of the 115 of course.
Click to expand...

A few things, all in my non-lawyer opinion:

The evidence presented at CAS was to counter the UEFA allegations which seems to be a small subset of the PL allegations, certainly for the number of years, at least.

I am pretty sure the PL won't have seen the actual evidence presented at CAS, they will just have read about it. Afaik, the evidence presented at CAS is confidential and maintained securely at CAS.

If that is the case, and I am pretty sure it is, then it has no real bearing on whether the PL proceeds with a referral to the disciplinary process in February 2023 or not. They can't rely on hearsay evidence that only covers a small period of the PL's full allegations anyway.

And I would suggest the fact the PL knows evidence from Mansour and ADUG was presented at CAS and not to the PL investigation strengthens the PL's (presumed) argument that the club could have presented the same sort of evidence covering all the years in question. The club will counter that and may be successful with other arguments, of course. I hope so.

That said, I have mentioned before that imho the time for the PL to drop its investigation was after the CAS award. That was the time to draw a line under the whole thing. We can all speculate why they didn't and we would probably all be right.

One last thing, I don't think CAS ever decided that there was no proof supporting the time-barred charges. I may be wrong, but I think that was the club stating that, not CAS. I don't think the CAS panel even looked at them, why would they?
 
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