PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

I find I'm getting more pissed of with this non cooperation. City could be fined millions for not cooperating on some jumped up charges that City are cleared of
I brain doesn't understand this, the results from the witchhunt is innocent but guilty because we didn't play along.

City will have spent millions fighting these jumped up charges. If anything once proved innocent the pl should pay all our expenses and not charge us with non cooperation.

I know I live in a simple world but I want to see every pl investigated as deeply as City. I want rags cayman island accounts looked into etc

I'm really getting fucked of with this shit now.

See what a weekend of no football does to me lol
 
Damocles said:
Just to clarify this - so early is good for us, but because we can't define early then we don't know if it not being released by now is good or bad or nothing?

So essentially you're saying we cant draw any conclusions from time. Are you still confident on the soft signal type thing?
Click to expand...
Yes. I would say anytime before Easter is early on any basis. But it is not impossible that the IC is not working any quicker than it would in a High Court 12 week fraud trial. In that case, early is pre-Xmas 2025. Sorry, I know this is not amazingly useful information.

And whilst it is not impossible there is White Smoke this week, there are no signs at all that I have heard yet and I would say my range of contacts on this topic is quite wide and atypical.
 
There are 2 disciplinary routes under Rules W (Disciplinary) and X (Arbitration).

I was assuming that the the 115 was under Rules W and the APT under X. Under Section W, the rules state that they have to issue an announcement before proceeding to a sanction.
 
slbsn said:
Yes. I would say anytime before Easter is early on any basis. But it is not impossible that the IC is not working any quicker than it would in a High Court 12 week fraud trial. In that case, early is pre-Xmas 2025. Sorry, I know this is not amazingly useful information.

And whilst it is not impossible there is White Smoke this week, there are no signs at all that I have heard yet and I would say my range of contacts on this topic is quite wide and atypical.
Click to expand...

Ok cheers. As I've said before, the only people I speak to at City are all football staff and by and large they'd struggle to spell IC let alone know any results of it. They get info from us rather than vice versa.

Will you give us a heads up in thread if you hear any white smoke type things? I don't know if @Ric still gets heads up before breaking news but our servers would appreciate it if not.
 
Bluewonder said:
Are you saying that if we don't hear anything in the foreseeable the likely implication is that the findings of the initial hearing are being held back until the findings of the sanctioning hearing are released?

And by extension, that means we're more likely to have been found against for the more serious charges than the non-cooperation allegations?

Thanks.
Click to expand...
Flies in the face of Pep saying we would have the decision in about a month, about a month ago.

People need to be sensible here. Just because @slbsn and @BillyShears have “heard” the club hasn’t had the decision, doesn’t mean the club hasn’t had the decision.

Let’s be realistic, the club is not going to release that information to two random members of the public, especially to two people the club will be aware are very active on social media.

I’d be 100 times more likely to go with what Pep is saying.
 
slbsn said:
Whilst I think it is more likely they do release a full reasoned decision at each stage, these rules do not make that clear. It is not impossible that an interim or partial decision (ie liability) is not a final determination or that under W.49 the parties agree not to release it to keep a lid on the speculation pending the sanction decision.

"In either case, unless the parties otherwise agree, the Commission shall give its reasons for its decision (a copy of which shall be provided to the Chair of the Judicial Panel). In the event of a majority decision no minority or dissenting opinion shall be produced or published."

There is also W.83.3 which says "final awards of any Commission, Interim Commission or Appeal Board shall be confirmed publicly and published on the League’s website"

Again, is a partial final award a final award? Or is it an interim award? Seen it called different things
Click to expand...
Having read W48, W49 and W50, I think they are obliged by their own rules to announce the decision before determining the sanction. Rule 49 which you cite in italics relates to the reasons.
 
Marvin. said:
There are 2 disciplinary routes under Rules W (Disciplinary) and X (Arbitration).

I was assuming that the the 115 was under Rules W and the APT under X. Under Section W, the rules state that they have to issue an announcement before proceeding to a sanction.
Click to expand...
115 is Rule W but I don't agree that is the clear reading of the publication rules in W.
 
Stoned Rose said:
Flies in the face of Pep saying we would have the decision in about a month, about a month ago.

People need to be sensible here. Just because @slbsn and @BillyShears have “heard” the club hasn’t had the decision, doesn’t mean the club hasn’t had the decision.

Let’s be realistic, the club is not going to release that information to two random members of the public, especially to two people the club will be aware are very active on social media.

I’d be 100 times more likely to go with what Pep is saying.
Click to expand...
Don’t we know much at all really and I wouldn’t take what Pep says in a news conference too literally either, Could be tomorrorow could be another month.
 
Marvin. said:
Having read W48, W49 and W50, I think they are obliged by their own rules to announce the decision before determining the sanction. Rule 49 which you cite in italics relates to the reasons.
Click to expand...
As I say, none of it is completely clear or well drafted. Announced does not seem to mean "confirmed publicly" otherwise it would say so as it does in W.83. Arguably, W.48 means announced to the parties. I don't think it does but parties looking to keep it secret may make such arguments.
 
Coatigan said:
I am not suggesting THIS wait means that. Just that if it did go straight to the sentencing stage before any verdict was announced, it would suggest some of the substantive charges went against us.
Click to expand...

Again, nobody knows nearly enough to understand what is really going on. And that is my only point really.

We all have theories, but certainly not based on enough to panic when nothing happens in a particular week.
 
SilverFox2 said:
Whilst the legal process is slow it seems that it's various stages are not being posted as completed or work in progress.
Are there good reasons for such legal secrecy?
Click to expand...
A well timed question, the answer surely relates to the seriousness of the outcome's consequences. Really odd that the Sunday Times is still silent on the story - it's Defcon 1 now!
 
slbsn said:
As I say, none of it is completely clear or well drafted. Announced does not seem to mean "confirmed publicly" otherwise it would say so as it does in W.83. Arguably, W.48 means announced to the parties. I don't think it does but parties looking to keep it secret may make such arguments.
Click to expand...

w48: In the case of a determination at a hearing the Commission’s decision shall be announced as soon as practicable thereafter and if possible at the end of the hearing and shall be confirmed in writing by the chair of the Commission to the parties (and copied to the Chair of the Judicial Panel).
 
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