PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Pingu the Penguin said:
This will having been already covered somewhere but, if we are somehow found guilty of the major charges, how would you react? Personally I’d be fucking livid given the assurances we’ve had from the top
Click to expand...

We were given assurances we’re innocent, and that we hold irrefutable evidence to support that position.

We were not given assurances that the panel would consequently find us either guilty or innocent.

That part is out of our control.

Remember - we were found guilty and banned from European football for two years by UEFA based on no evidence whatsoever (as CAS confirmed) - so the fact of innocence, and being found so by the panel are not one and the same.

In that context - my reaction would be based on how the Club responded to a guilty verdict.

If they accept, and it’s proven their assurances on our innocence were false - I’d be fucking furious.

If they respond in the strongest of terms that they reject the findings, that we are innocent, and that they intend to pursue the case to clear our name - I’d understand this is likely another compromised stitch up of a process, and would fully support the Club as I did last time round.
 
Nicholas van Whatsisface said:
We were given assurances we’re innocent, and that we hold irrefutable evidence to support that position.

We were not given assurances that the panel would consequently find us either guilty or innocent.

That part is out of our control.

Remember - we were found guilty and banned from European football for two years by UEFA based on no evidence whatsoever (as CAS confirmed) - so the fact of innocence, and being found so by the panel are not one and the same.

In that context - my reaction would be based on how the Club responded to a guilty verdict.

If they accept, and it’s proven their assurances on our innocence were false - I’d be fucking furious.

If they respond in the strongest of terms that they reject the findings, that we are innocent, and that they intend to pursue the case to clear our name - I’d understand this is likely another compromised stitch up of a process, and would fully support the Club as I did last time round.
Click to expand...
1. There is no guilty or innocent in a civil action. The allegations are either proved or not proved.
2. The grounds for appeal are very narrow. City would have to show that verdict was either wrong in law or perverse.Merely contending a factual finding is not enough. There is no appeal to CAS allowed under the PL rules.
 
KS55 said:
1. There is no guilty or innocent in a civil action. The allegations are either proved or not proved.
2. The grounds for appeal are very narrow. City would have to show that verdict was either wrong in law or perverse.
Click to expand...

1 - I get that. I was using the language as framed in the question, but I appreciate the pedantry.
2 - I thought it was pretty clear that I was suggesting City would argue the verdict was indeed wrong in law as the grounds for appeal, and would state the existence of their irrefutable evidence to demonstrate that position.
 
KS55 said:
1. There is no guilty or innocent in a civil action. The allegations are either proved or not proved.
2. The grounds for appeal are very narrow. City would have to show that verdict was either wrong in law or perverse.Merely contending a factual finding is not enough. There is no appeal to CAS allowed under the PL rules.
Click to expand...

Why would the pl vote not to allow CAS ?

To be seen as being above board the pl should welcome CAS.
But the pl dont allow the var discussion to be heard
 
Nicholas van Whatsisface said:
1 - I get that. I was using the language as framed in the question, but I appreciate the pedantry.
2 - I thought it was pretty clear that I was suggesting City would argue the verdict was indeed wrong in law as the grounds for appeal, and would state the existence of their irrefutable evidence to demonstrate that position.
Click to expand...
An argument that the verdict is ‘wrong’ is not grounds for appeal. The irrefutable evidence route would fail, imho. There would need to be a demonstrable error in law. So, for example, you could not merely challenge someone’s evidence, you would have to show that the panel’s interpretation of that evidence conflicted with the law under, say, the Arbitration Act that governs these hearings.
 
give it to gordon said:
Why would the pl vote not to allow CAS ?

To be seen as being above board the pl should welcome CAS.
But the pl dont allow the var discussion to be heard
Click to expand...
It’s the explicit rules, mate. Wrong but unavoidable. While we are on the hook the other teams are not going to propose a rule change that gives us an out.
 
KS55 said:
An argument that the verdict is ‘wrong’ is not grounds for appeal. There would need to be a demonstrable error in law. So, for example, you could not merely challenge someone’s evidence, you would have to show that the panel’s interpretation of that evidence conflicted with the law under, say, the Arbitration Act that governs these hearings.
Click to expand...

I didn’t say ‘wrong’, I said ‘wrong in law’.

What’s your point?

I would imagine Lord Pannick would likely offer a slightly more nuanced response than ‘you’re wrong’, and would be expertly positioned to advise on how we best use our bank of irrefutable evidence to demonstrate that the law was not interpreted and applied correctly in this case.
 
Nicholas van Whatsisface said:
I didn’t say ‘wrong’, I said ‘wrong in law’.

What’s your point?

I would imagine Lord Pannick would likely offer a slightly more nuanced response than ‘you’re wrong’, and would be expertly positioned to advise on how we best use our bank of irrefutable evidence to demonstrate that the law was not interpreted and applied correctly in this case.
Click to expand...
I think you’re still just talking about facts per se. The irrefutable evidence is 10 years of audited accounts.
In any case, the assurance from Khaldoon is good enough for me, whatever the panel say. You won’t need to be cross, I’m sure.
 
KS55 said:
I think you’re still just talking about facts per se.
In any case, the assurance from Khaldoon is good enough for me, whatever the panel say. You won’t need to be cross, I’m sure.
Click to expand...

I’m suggesting the eminent legal professionals we’re paying a small fortune to will advise us on how best to make the case that the law was not applied correctly in relation to our evidence.
 
There’s only the Trafford Red Sox holding up the real process of returning the red cartel to the top, my guess is the PL are hoping for a lengthy appeals process, so football in it’s entirety will still be looking at us, while them Sky & the gov shuffle the rags back to the top
 
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