PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[slbsn]

I'm still waiting patiently for a reply to me asking you what you meant when you posted the club has received "free media services from you".
I don't understand.

I don't reply to every question. And the answer to this one is pretty obvious.

 

[GaudinoMotors]

No

I’m not legally informed but I distinctly remember someone knowledgable posting a while back that there is almost zero chance of city seeking recourse against the PL for the accusations

I can't recall posting that.

 

[johnny crossan]

He was already eminent while my eminence was merely imminent.

Imminence is immanent innit?

 

[blueste41]

To the clever people who have a knowledge of the rules and legal issues.
My question refers to if we are exonerated from the main charges that amount to Gross corporate fraud and false accounting but are found liable to some of the lesser charges

Would City not sue the Premier League for accusing the owner and senior management of such terrible offences.
Their reputation having been tarnished .
Or at least want a considerable sum and apology.

Or would they use the leverage as mitigation for the non compliance and other minor transgressions they may find in favour of the Premier League.

I expect that would be only possible if there was zero evidence and all of the charges were baseless fabrication, given how long the panel have deliberated for that is unlikely. If your found not guilty it doesn't automatically follow that you have a route to compensation.

 

[bluemonkey71]

Comfort yourself however you like. What I’ve written is fact on not just based on generalisations. City are confident but not certain or complacent.

I think the answer lies in between your post and his - StonedRose

 

[halfcenturyup]

I can't recall posting that.

It must have been me, then.

 

[asahartford1]

I expect that would be only possible if there was zero evidence and all of the charges were baseless fabrication, given how long the panel have deliberated for that is unlikely. If your found not guilty it doesn't automatically follow that you have a route to compensation.

Business Fraud and false accounting.
Businesses found guilty would expect a hefty sentence I would of thought.
A football club found guilty would be thrown out of the league.

I don't think the person in the street realises the enormity of the charge, the people I talk to think it is akin to everton or forest.

 

[halfcenturyup]

To the clever people who have a knowledge of the rules and legal issues.
My question refers to if we are exonerated from the main charges that amount to Gross corporate fraud and false accounting but are found liable to some of the lesser charges

Would City not sue the Premier League for accusing the owner and senior management of such terrible offences.
Their reputation having been tarnished .
Or at least want a considerable sum and apology.

Or would they use the leverage as mitigation for the non compliance and other minor transgressions they may find in favour of the Premier League.

I suspect that, like CAS, the panel will make a point that the PL were perfectly within their rights to refer the allegations to a disciplinary panel. Even I, who thinks the PL are getting royally screwed, can't see a situation where the award suggests, in any way, that the PL acted in bad faith.

It would be funny as fuck if they did, though :)

 

[blueste41]

Business Fraud and false accounting.
Businesses found guilty would expect a hefty sentence I would of thought.
A football club found guilty would be thrown out of the league.

I don't think the person in the street realises the enormity of the charge, the people I talk to think it is akin to everton or forest.

Well many got away with it when applying for Covid loans and don't get me started on fast track VIP PPE contracts!

 

[manimanc]

I don't reply to every question. And the answer to this one is pretty obvious.

Ok buddy.

 

[chesterbells]

Imminence is immanent innit?

Imminence Front? Great track

 

[bluegaz13]

I said City are confident. I mentioned soft signals multiple times in the past. They are confident.

But they don't KNOW and acknowledge the decision may say things they don't like.

Is that called covering all bases

 

[johnny crossan]

Imminence Front? Great track

...But they don't KNOW and acknowledge the decision may say things they don't like.

May I ask where and when anyone from the club has acknowledged the final ruling will be anything other than entirely favourable for us.

 

[Lord Blue]

I can't recall posting that.

I posted a letter the other day. Then I got a letter through the post. But it wasn’t the same letter. It was a different letter.

 

[slbsn]

May I ask where and when anyone from the club has acknowledged the final ruling will be anything other than entirely favourable for us.

I never said that. But likewise I’m hardly likely to tell you who I speak to.

But it’s not just one individual that acknowledges there is risk that some things go against the club. And anyone that didn’t recognise that risk wouldn’t be credible anyway.

 

[slbsn]

No

I’m not legally informed but I distinctly remember someone knowledgable posting a while back that there is almost zero chance of city seeking recourse against the PL for the accusations

I’ve said that. Almost no chance of anything but a high award of our costs (which means 90%) unless the Commission says the claim was baseless and brought in bad faith. Which is something it won’t say.

 

[johnny crossan]

I never said that. But likewise I’m hardly likely to tell you who I speak to.

But it’s not just one individual that acknowledges there is risk that some things go against the club. And anyone that didn’t recognise that risk wouldn’t be credible anyway.

How else could the 'they' in your post be construed? If it was a confidential comment made privately to you from someone at the club I can understand the need for discretion but it could equally have been a public pronouncement.

...But they don't KNOW and acknowledge the decision may say things they don't like.

 

[slbsn]

How else could the 'they' in your post be construed? If it was a confidential comment made privately to you from someone at the club I can understand the need for discretion but it could equally have been a public pronouncement.

MAY say

 

[johnny crossan]

MAY say

I'm sorry I don't see how them allegedly acknowledging even the possibility makes any difference to my question. As far as I know the club has never publicly conceded any other outcome than a wholly positive one.

 

[wolviedinho]

I'm sorry I don't see how them allegedly acknowledging even the possibility makes any difference to my question. As far as I know the club has never publicly conceded any other outcome than a wholly positive one.

The club has always stood by its irrefutable evidence line. So are we leaking now? Or is it bullshit?