PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

gordondaviesmoustache said:
No, the evidence is concluded and nothing else is admissible.
Click to expand...
I think we know that part of the process was full disclosure of documents including emails from both sides - City and the PL. Could it be that certain clubs know that there is damning evidence within the disclosed documents, that would make the position of certain club executives untenable? Could that be a reason for some executives leaving their positions before the announcement?

That said, it appears Levy's departure was planned as far back as the start of this year.
 
I'm still not buying the argument that a three month hearing and a nine month wait for the award is anything other than a reflection of the number of allegations and the volume of evidence and counter-evidence that has been presented.

No-one had a problem at the time with a three month hearing. No-one at the time had a problem with a long wait for the award, even if most of us thought it would be done by now.

And, most importantly, the standard of proof required for the PL to prove its allegations is still the same as it ever was. And I can't see how they can meet that standard when we have a pretty good idea from CAS of the sort of counter-evidence the club will have presented.

Finally, the idea that the PL wouldn't proceed if they thought they weren't going to win doesn't add up in my book, either. There were plenty of other factors that could have been taken into account in the decision to refer the club to a disciplinary panel, other than just the chance of success.

All imho, of course.
 
Didsbury Dave said:
Of course. But the likelihood of the premier league’s internal and external legal advisors saying “This is not winnable and will cost you £50 million and your credibility” and them pushing on anyway is pretty low, and is backed up by the fact that no decision has been released a year later.
Click to expand...
Cost who £50m?
Wont be the people who made the decision to go ahead with the charges.
It was posted on here shortly after this thread started that a respected poster had heard that after the charges were brought the premier league offered us a deal.
Cleared of most charges and just fined for non cooperation
 
Didsbury Dave said:
Of course. But the likelihood of the premier league’s internal and external legal advisors saying “This is not winnable and will cost you £50 million and your credibility” and them pushing on anyway is pretty low, and is backed up by the fact that no decision has been released a year later.
Click to expand...
Didn’t stop them pushing on with APT after they had been told the were void and unenforceable
 
If the case goes against City be prepared for endless stories in the media, if it goes City’s way very little coverage maybe a day or 2 .
 
slbsn said:
Clearly I was talking about the idea there is ongoing settlement discussions/City suing Big 6. But as it happens I don't think the PL Board are focussed on "Civil War" or that there is a general US v City/Newcastle animosity. It is far more nuanced than that.
Click to expand...
It always amazes me that some people seem to think in terms of these claimed groupings as though the league was made up not of 20 self-contained and frankly self-interested entities but instead two blocs, for all the world like the Eastern bloc and the Western bloc during the cold war days.

There are certain issues on which City's interest are akin to Newcastle's. On others, they are not. They have made common cause with United about (for instance, IIRC) the squad cost ratio suggestions, but were on diametrically opposed sides during the APT votes. Villa and Forest take the same view as City where it suits their interests to do so, not when it doesn't. Equally, the idea that every one of the US owned clubs has exactly the same agenda and exactly the some priorities and will therefore vote in exactly the same way on every single issue seems to me to be obvious nonsense.

Likewise all 20 of the clubs in the league.

I sometimes wonder, as an aside, why it was that clubs like Brighton and Brentford took the side of the history clubs on the APT issue, but doubtless they will have had their own reasons for doing so.
 
Chris in London said:
I sometimes wonder, as an aside, why it was that clubs like Brighton and Brentford took the side of the history clubs on the APT issue, but doubtless they will have had their own reasons for doing so.
Click to expand...
A couple of million reasons each, I bet.
 
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