PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Longdarnit Blue]

It’ll be any day now (any given Monday to Sunday) but the EPL conspirators are definitely running scared after our latest transfers. They’ve even kept the number of teams down to 20 to ensure that if we win every game we can only get 114 points.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Were you in a barn?

Close. The BBC studio in Media City, which is full of strange and exotic creatures.

 

[BerkshireBlue]

It's a posh version of an auto predictor that your phone keyboard uses. It doesn't understand words or questions. It just tells you the statistically most likely word to come after this one, in the context of the sentence. There is no knowledge, no comprehension, no understanding.

I'll let it explain:



ChatGPT gave those answers because it used Bluemoon in its training data and that's what people on Bluemoon said, essentially.

Here's how it works for all you math fans.

nice but wrong as it recurrence so the maths is way off

 

[blue b4 the moon]

The league would be safer coming out after city win saying they are relieved and delighted one of their top clubs is clean and operating a well run club within the rule of law and the financial safeguards in place.we had to investigate for the integrity of the competition blah blah blah. Easy way out imo.

All bull of course. The only people left foaming will be idiots like spits at kids.

No one really believes we will be punished. That’s why the outcry is so venomous.

Haha, they'll come out with the sort of comment from Leicester 'getting away with it', I think the phrase they used was "Disappointed with the panels findings".

 

[blue b4 the moon]

The owl in a jar.

Is the correct term.

 

[BongoBlue]

Close. The BBC studio in Media City, which is full of strange and exotic creatures.

It's like the bar scene in Star Wars...;)

 

[slbsn]

If that is true, does that not then presume there is no real challenging the verdict itself.

I.e if the sanction has to happen for an appeal to be possible, then it can seem like it is not challenging whether the club are guilty or not, just whether the sanction is proportionate. Would struggle to see how a guilty verdict, then a sanction appealed can go back to first principles and say - no need for a sanction because the verdict itself was wrong.

On the other hand of that same logic, if found innocent, and there is such no sanction, the PL don't then have any real mechanism for appealing the verdict.

Not really. The appeal can be as to the liability and then, "if we are wrong about our appeal on liability, we still say the sanction was wrong for the following reasons..."

Or we accept the liability decision (say it finds no-cooperation only), but say the sanction was disproportionate or, say, shouldn't have been a sporting sanction at all.

 

[Coatigan]

Not really. The appeal can be as to the liability and then, "if we are wrong about our appeal on liability, we still say the sanction was wrong for the following reasons..."

Or we accept the liability decision (say it finds no-cooperation only), but say the sanction was disproportionate or, say, shouldn't have been a sporting sanction at all.

In no way am I saying I don't believe you, I do. I am just not seeing the sense in that. But that’s me. Might make more sense as it unfolds.

Well, hopefully not, hopefully it never gets that far and there is no liability anyway

 

[slbsn]

I've seen that claimed, and that there is no right to appeal, and anywhere inbetween.

Which I guess only backs my point, if you can only appeal after a sanction, it almost implies guilt has been established. And if liability is not proven, then there is no real appeal to that by the PL if no sanction is handed down.

This has been gone through before. The club can appeal any IC decision (on liability or sanction). It can do so for any reason under Rule W but it is inevitable that the IC's factual findings will be hard to unwind - if they find Mr X an unreliable witness, that is it. The Appeal is not going to recall Mr X for re-cross examination - City will be stuck with that finding. Where the IC has got the law wrong or added extra sanctions even though, say, the PL never invited a particular finding on that point (effectively what happened in Everton 1), that can be challenged. Likewise, a wholly disproportionate sanction could also be challenged. In that case, like Everton, you could expect City to throw every argument about sanction you can think of at the Appeal Board but probably still have to accept the IC's factual findings.

The Rule W appeal decision is final. Save for Rule X.

Rule X.37 says: Subject to the provisions of sections 67 to 71 of the Act, the award shall be final and binding on the parties and there shall be no right of appeal. There shall be no right of appeal on a point of law under section 69 of the Act. In the event that a party to arbitration under this Section X challenges the award, whether in the English High Court or any other forum, it shall ensure that the League is provided with a copy of any written pleadings filed and/or evidence adduced as soon as reasonably practicable after their/its filing.

In simple terms this is a very limited final appeal (CAS not possible) - Sections 67, 68, 70, and 71 of the Arbitration Act 1996 allow challenges to an arbitration award based on lack of jurisdiction (s.67), serious procedural irregularity causing injustice (s.68), procedural rules and time limits for bringing such challenges (s.70), and jurisdictional objections by non-parties affected by the award (s.71). It is really unlikely any of those could be said to apply to City's case.

Note that even if the Rule W appeal got the law completely wrong, the parties are stuck with it

 

[Lovebitesandeveryfing]

Has it occurred to anybody that the 115 case has something in common with VAR? If it takes this long to come to a decision, then they probably shouldn't have intervened in the first place.

But what is, finally, wearisome is this: on other club's forums, and in thousands of know-very-little-to-know-nothing discussions between wise old birds down the pub, the sheer length of time this has dragged out has petrified what were and still are no more than allegations into established facts.
No substantive detail is required for these facts to be facts.“City are cheats”, “You support a cheater club”.
And how do you know this, good sir? I mean, how do you personally know this? Really – I'm listening:
“Well it's just well known, isn't it? I mean… you couldn't have won all this stuff otherwise could you? I mean — everybody says it… so it must be true, mustn't it?”
In short, this is what's called received opinion, masquerading as truth.
A mantra repeated often enough has a hypnotic effect…

Nobody should be under any illusions. Even if we are exonerated — even if the charges are fully dismissed — in fact, especially then, this will go on — and on — but henceforth simply in the form of “You slippy buggers! Got away with it, didn't you! Paid ’em off, did you? Yeah, backed by an oil state, you can even twist the law to suit your purposes…”

And yes, it is true — oil is slippery. That part is undeniable. All the rest follows.
They rest their case. M'lud.

 

[marco]

acording to the ragsters on the caf were just getting a transfer ban and thats it. pre aranged with the PL and part of the deal was we could stock up on quality younger players berore hand so in effect it would have zero impact

 

[sktooblue]

Has it occurred to anybody that the 115 case has something in common with VAR? If it takes this long to come to a decision, then they probably shouldn't have intervened in the first place.

But what is, finally, wearisome is this: on other club's forums, and in thousands of know-very-little-to-know-nothing discussions between wise old birds down the pub, the sheer length of time this has dragged out has petrified what were and still are no more than allegations into established facts.
No substantive detail is required for these facts to be facts.“City are cheats”, “You support a cheater club”.
And how do you know this, good sir? I mean, how do you personally know this? Really – I'm listening:
“Well it's just well known, isn't it? I mean… you couldn't have won all this stuff otherwise could you? I mean — everybody says it… so it must be true, mustn't it?”
In short, this is what's called received opinion, masquerading as truth.
A mantra repeated often enough has a hypnotic effect…

Nobody should be under any illusions. Even if we are exonerated — even if the charges are fully dismissed — in fact, especially then, this will go on — and on — but henceforth simply in the form of “You slippy buggers! Got away with it, didn't you! Paid ’em off, did you? Yeah, backed by an oil state, you can even twist the law to suit your purposes…”

And yes, it is true — oil is slippery. That part is undeniable. All the rest follows.
They rest their case. M'lud.

I think when we are found innocent, the narrative will be that we've destroyed the EPL brand & will be held responsible for the collapse of the EPL altogether. Especially, if this then re-opens the door to a European Super League again.

 

[Coatigan]

This has been gone through before. The club can appeal any IC decision (on liability or sanction). It can do so for any reason under Rule W but it is inevitable that the IC's factual findings will be hard to unwind - if they find Mr X an unreliable witness, that is it. The Appeal is not going to recall Mr X for re-cross examination - City will be stuck with that finding. Where the IC has got the law wrong or added extra sanctions even though, say, the PL never invited a particular finding on that point (effectively what happened in Everton 1), that can be challenged. Likewise, a wholly disproportionate sanction could also be challenged. In that case, like Everton, you could expect City to throw every argument about sanction you can think of at the Appeal Board but probably still have to accept the IC's factual findings.

The Rule W appeal decision is final. Save for Rule X.

Rule X.37 says: Subject to the provisions of sections 67 to 71 of the Act, the award shall be final and binding on the parties and there shall be no right of appeal. There shall be no right of appeal on a point of law under section 69 of the Act. In the event that a party to arbitration under this Section X challenges the award, whether in the English High Court or any other forum, it shall ensure that the League is provided with a copy of any written pleadings filed and/or evidence adduced as soon as reasonably practicable after their/its filing.

In simple terms this is a very limited final appeal (CAS not possible) - Sections 67, 68, 70, and 71 of the Arbitration Act 1996 allow challenges to an arbitration award based on lack of jurisdiction (s.67), serious procedural irregularity causing injustice (s.68), procedural rules and time limits for bringing such challenges (s.70), and jurisdictional objections by non-parties affected by the award (s.71). It is really unlikely any of those could be said to apply to City's case.

Note that even if the Rule W got the law completely wrong, the parties are stuck with it

And this would be different to appealing After a sanctions hearing, if it got to that?

 

[slbsn]

And this would be different to appealing After a sanctions hearing, if it got to that?

No the same. There won't be an appeal on liability before a sanction decision in all likelihood.

 

[Centurions]

acording to the ragsters on the caf were just getting a transfer ban and thats it. pre aranged with the PL and part of the deal was we could stock up on quality younger players berore hand so in effect it would have zero impact

I don't suppose it's occurred to any of them that if the PL hadn't bothered in the first place then that wouldn't have been necessary. I mean, UEFA gave them an easy out as well.

 

[halfcenturyup]

No the same. There won't be an appeal on liability before a sanction decision in all likelihood.

What's the rationale for splitting the case into two hearings then? If there is no appeal after the liability judgment, why split it in the first place? They could have just cracked on and determined the sanction in a single hearing?

 

[Kinkybyname]

Has it occurred to anybody that the 115 case has something in common with VAR? If it takes this long to come to a decision, then they probably shouldn't have intervened in the first place.

But what is, finally, wearisome is this: on other club's forums, and in thousands of know-very-little-to-know-nothing discussions between wise old birds down the pub, the sheer length of time this has dragged out has petrified what were and still are no more than allegations into established facts.
No substantive detail is required for these facts to be facts.“City are cheats”, “You support a cheater club”.
And how do you know this, good sir? I mean, how do you personally know this? Really – I'm listening:
“Well it's just well known, isn't it? I mean… you couldn't have won all this stuff otherwise could you? I mean — everybody says it… so it must be true, mustn't it?”
In short, this is what's called received opinion, masquerading as truth.
A mantra repeated often enough has a hypnotic effect…

Nobody should be under any illusions. Even if we are exonerated — even if the charges are fully dismissed — in fact, especially then, this will go on — and on — but henceforth simply in the form of “You slippy buggers! Got away with it, didn't you! Paid ’em off, did you? Yeah, backed by an oil state, you can even twist the law to suit your purposes…”

And yes, it is true — oil is slippery. That part is undeniable. All the rest follows.
They rest their case. M'lud.

if it was as simple as paying them off to clear our name, you'd have thought we'd have done it more than two years ago!

 

[KS55]

What's the rationale for splitting the case into two hearings then? If there is no appeal after the liability judgment, why split it in the first place? They could have just cracked on and determined the sanction in a single hearing?

Pannick et al get a bigger fee from two hearings. QED.

 

[CC1]

Nobody should be under any illusions. Even if we are exonerated — even if the charges are fully dismissed — in fact, especially then, this will go on — and on — but henceforth simply in the form of “You slippy buggers! Got away with it, didn't you! Paid ’em off, did you? Yeah, backed by an oil state, you can even twist the law to suit your purposes…”

Don’t care in the least. Ill enjoy their pain & let them know

 

[johnevans]

Don’t care in the least. Ill enjoy their pain & let them know

Agree entirely.. I have the above in my phone gallery as evidence when pointing out to fans of other clubs the error of their ways when they say we 'cheated' and 'misled' the CAS arbitration. And I also have the photo below to remind me to channel my 'Inner Dave Mackay' whenever I do so.. I look forward to having similar evidence when this farrago with the PL is finally done and dusted..