PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

dominicgrimes said:
if judges don't want to undermine each other, why do we bother with appeal courts and a supreme court ?

different judges put different interpretations on evidence based on their own experience
Click to expand...

Judgments in arbitration cases are different. The CAS decision is excellent evidence for City, in the whole. High Court decisions shape the way policy/law is applied. They look at the evidence and matters of law to ensure the verdict was sound. They eliminate any interpretations that have veered too far away from the evidence or policies/law. Turning up with the CAS verdict is a huge positive with City, and something the panel will take seriously when it comes to the evidence considered in that case. But the fact we didn't convince all three suggests to me there might be some doubt in our evidence when it comes to this panel. I could be way off the mark, which is why I wondered if PB had any thoughts - it's clear he isn't concerned so my guess is no!
 
The Colonel said:
The Uefa selected judge who ignored the fact that there was “no evidence”. A weird one to say the least. What’s different here though is that this is a deep dive into City’s accounts rather than relying on senior employees statements.
Click to expand...

I'm certain I am probably overthinking it. Just wanted to express it, with the hope people could calm the only nagging doubt I still have!
 
supercity88 said:
Judgments in arbitration cases are different. The CAS decision is excellent evidence for City, in the whole. High Court decisions shape the way policy/law is applied. They look at the evidence and matters of law to ensure the verdict was sound. They eliminate any interpretations that have veered too far away from the evidence or policies/law. Turning up with the CAS verdict is a huge positive with City, and something the panel will take seriously when it comes to the evidence considered in that case. But the fact we didn't convince all three suggests to me there might be some doubt in our evidence when it comes to this panel. I could be way off the mark, which is why I wondered if PB had any thoughts - it's clear he isn't concerned so my guess is no!
Click to expand...
The CAS ruling is not a High Court judgement, it was a finding of fact based on the evidence heard at that hearing.

There is nothing in CAS decision that sets any sort of legal precedent. Their ruling is not binding or even persuasive to the PL tribunal who will be basing their decision on the (presumably much more substantial) body of evidence that was brought before them.
 
supercity88 said:
Judgments in arbitration cases are different. The CAS decision is excellent evidence for City, in the whole. High Court decisions shape the way policy/law is applied. They look at the evidence and matters of law to ensure the verdict was sound. They eliminate any interpretations that have veered too far away from the evidence or policies/law. Turning up with the CAS verdict is a huge positive with City, and something the panel will take seriously when it comes to the evidence considered in that case. But the fact we didn't convince all three suggests to me there might be some doubt in our evidence when it comes to this panel. I could be way off the mark, which is why I wondered if PB had any thoughts - it's clear he isn't concerned so my guess is no!
Click to expand...
One thing to note from my own research, all the members of PL Judicial Panel who by default have experience in sport are also arbitors at CAS, all of them.
However, those from CAS2020 are not on the PLs panel, including the nut case Prof Haas who no doubt pushed for the unprecedented fine of 10m for non-coop.
 
supercity88 said:
I'm certain I am probably overthinking it. Just wanted to express it, with the hope people could calm the only nagging doubt I still have!
Click to expand...
That 2-1 is something that bothers me too sometimes. And also the wording on some of those emails, the bit we all ignore on here. Plausibly deniable, of course, but also plausibly a smoking gun.
 
Didsbury Dave said:
That 2-1 is something that bothers me too sometimes. And also the wording on some of those emails, the bit we all ignore on here. Plausibly deniable, of course, but also plausibly a smoking gun.
Click to expand...

It shouldn’t be forgotten that the CAS report stated, in relation to one of the worst sounding emails…

“Was sent 10 years ago and two years before the implementation of the CLFFPR. So, even if true, at the time there would have been nothing wrong with channelling equity funding through sponsors.”
 
supercity88 said:
Judgments in arbitration cases are different. The CAS decision is excellent evidence for City, in the whole. High Court decisions shape the way policy/law is applied. They look at the evidence and matters of law to ensure the verdict was sound. They eliminate any interpretations that have veered too far away from the evidence or policies/law. Turning up with the CAS verdict is a huge positive with City, and something the panel will take seriously when it comes to the evidence considered in that case. But the fact we didn't convince all three suggests to me there might be some doubt in our evidence when it comes to this panel. I could be way off the mark, which is why I wondered if PB had any thoughts - it's clear he isn't concerned so my guess is no!
Click to expand...
The UEFA judge found against us, which you'd have expected. City were never going to get all three judges finding for us at CAS.
 
dickie davies said:
Because even if the club is cleared of everything, it will always be referred to as 'Manchester City, who were charged more than 100 times with breaking Premier league financial rules'
Meanwhile you never hear Juventus referred to as 'Juventus, who were found guilty of bribing officials and relegated two divisions'
Click to expand...
I have to say, I couldn't care less about Juventus, or Marseilles, or any other team's coverage in the media.

Also, as long as I'm enjoying City doing well, why should I need any reassurance from the same media whose opinion I never value, anyway?

I'd rather just enjoy the good days.
 
Last edited:
Didsbury Dave said:
That 2-1 is something that bothers me too sometimes. And also the wording on some of those emails, the bit we all ignore on here. Plausibly deniable, of course, but also plausibly a smoking gun.
Click to expand...
You have to remember that City chose one judge UEFA chose one but the one that mattered was the CAS judge as he was the one who was going to have the casting vote.
 
Didsbury Dave said:
That 2-1 is something that bothers me too sometimes. And also the wording on some of those emails, the bit we all ignore on here. Plausibly deniable, of course, but also plausibly a smoking gun.
Click to expand...
The 2-1 was due to Prof Haas who suffered from a severe form of Judicial psychosis during CAS2020. He said because we didn't co-operate with the thoroughly corrupt UEFA hatchet men he didn't care to consider any of our evidence and we were guilty by default. So it was an idealogical decision for him. The other two said..
1000014679.png
 
Last edited:
LeonardoDaVnci said:
The 2-1 was due to Prof Haas who suffered from a severe form of Judicial psychosis during CAS2020. He said because we didn't co-operate with the thoroughly corrupt UEFA hatchet men he didn't care to consider any of our evidence and we were guilty by default. So it was an idealogical decision for him.
Click to expand...
He actually said this?
 
dickie davies said:
Why was the club fined millions of pounds then?
Click to expand...
we cooperated with the investigation at the start but when it was obvious uefa where going to find us guilty whatever we did and the panel where handing over sensitive information to are rivals we stopped cooperating and said we would take it to cas although cas said they understood why we did it we still broke the rules
 
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