we passed that point a long long time ago...At what point does it become ridiculous like, for this type of case, it’s never been seen to take this long ever? Another year?
Sometimes I think they must have started writing it up again.
The published evidence from the APT case proved that the PL has been acting in bad faith. Pages and pages of evidence showing the PL delayed and even halted our sponsorship deals for no good reason. The Judges said the Pl behaved illegally and unfairly towards City. These are facts not speculation. The distorted press releases. The fake 115 charges narrative was leaked to the Times before they even told City. The PL has acted in bad faith throughout aided and abetted by some malicious rival club Directors. None of this is in any doubt.Yes, but if Section 1 is just a re-run of UEFA’s failed Football Leaks case with substantially the same evidence that failed at CAS, it’s hard to see how that would qualify as acting in good faith — or how the League could genuinely believe it can win.
At what point does it become ridiculous like what’s going on? Another year?
At what point does it become ridiculous like, for this type of case, it’s never been seen to take this long ever? Another year?
Sometimes I think they must have started writing it up again.
Of course it can.
Why would you set that possibility aside?Setting aside the possibility of undue influence being exerted by other members of the league, I don't think it much of a reach to think that those at the league who made the decision to pursue the case against City considered factors beyond simply winning or losing the case in making the decision. It would be much harder to believe that they didn't, in my experience in corporate litigation for the last 25+ years.
The published evidence from the APT case proved that the PL has been acting in bad faith. Pages and pages of evidence showing the PL delayed and even halted our sponsorship deals for no good reason. The Judges said the Pl behaved illegally and unfairly towards City. These are facts not speculation. The distorted press releases. The fake 115 charges narrative was leaked to the Times before they even told City. The PL has acted in bad faith throughout aided and abetted by some malicious rival club Directors. None of this is in any doubt.
I’ve been thinking along the same lines. Against UEFA, we held back our “irrefutable” evidence until the CAS hearing. Chris or GLBlue might be able to say whether that’s still possible this time. We’ll obviously have to give the Premier League everything they ask for, but the context and nuance can be left to the hearing — mainly through witness evidence from former CFOs/FDs, auditors, compliance staff, those involved in the sponsorships, and possibly independent third parties.I raised the point when all this nonsense started that just maybe the PL didn't have any choice but to refer open allegations to the disciplinary process at some point, that the club was OK with manipulating them into the position where they have to do that and that the end result was inevitable. I had various "soft signals" (as the phrase is "de rigeur") supporting that position but most respected posters in here pooh-pooh'd the idea and probably still do. Maybe rightly.
But it answers the question why the PL would have continued with the process on what we generally consider, on here at least, to be a hopeless case. And I still like to think it may be possible (because it reflects well on my club) and why not if the club thinks the process under the control of the PL was politically motivated, if it has "irrefutable" evidence, if it wants "to teach the PL a lesson" (with 30 million spent on lawyers rather than take another pinch) and if they know (grosso modo) that they won't have to pay for any of it if the allegations aren't proven?
I remember the phrase in the club's only statement on this: "The Club welcomes the review of this matter by an independent Commission, to impartially consider .... the ...... evidence". A pretty clear statement that they didn't consider the PL investigation impartial. And what do you not do with an investigation that isn't impartial? You don't play ball.
One that’s good for city ? Anymore context ?Something about seeing a document not in the public domain, months ago
One that’s good for city ? Anymore context ?
True, but the Premier League got away with the bad faith allegation in the APT case, even though they were found to have breached due process and caused unreasonable delay.The published evidence from the APT case proved that the PL has been acting in bad faith. Pages and pages of evidence showing the PL delayed and even halted our sponsorship deals for no good reason. The Judges said the Pl behaved illegally and unfairly towards City. These are facts not speculation. The distorted press releases. The fake 115 charges narrative was leaked to the Times before they even told City. The PL has acted in bad faith throughout aided and abetted by some malicious rival club Directors. None of this is in any doubt.
I’ve been thinking along the same lines. Against UEFA, we held back our “irrefutable” evidence until the CAS hearing. Chris or GLBlue might be able to say whether that’s still possible this time. We’ll obviously have to give the Premier League everything they ask for, but the context and nuance can be left to the hearing — mainly through witness evidence from former CFOs/FDs, auditors, compliance staff, those involved in the sponsorships, and possibly independent third parties.
If it's so irrefutable whys it taking so many years for them to reach a verdict, you would then have to ask.I’ve been thinking along the same lines. Against UEFA, we held back our “irrefutable” evidence until the CAS hearing. Chris or GLBlue might be able to say whether that’s still possible this time. We’ll obviously have to give the Premier League everything they ask for, but the context and nuance can be left to the hearing — mainly through witness evidence from former CFOs/FDs, auditors, compliance staff, those involved in the sponsorships, and possibly independent third parties.
I think it was from a podcast that's now 3 years old, he claimed to have seen some evidence at the PL regarding our sponsorship that wasn't in the public domain. If true then that must have been before we submitted anything? Maybe not (and again, if true) it may have come from us.One that’s good for city ? Anymore context ?
So true. The leaks and toxic briefings have dried up. I think United backed off when Ratcliffe came in an then appointed Berrada. Liverpool calmed down after Klopp left. Arsenal and Spurs stopped after Lewis and Levy left. Parry seems to have kept his head down at the EFL and Bayern seem to have gone easy since Vinny took over. These could just be coincidences but it does make you think.It's true that when there is news that can be interpreted as bad for City, it is either announced or leaked. The silence this last year has been noticeable. Whatever that means.
Berrada and Vinny could be seen as an extension of City's 'soft power' (something a certain US president could learn a thing or two about rather than just relying on hard power, but that's for a different thread) and will likely continue as more and more City alumni get into positions of authority within the wider game. City's owners have always played the long game.So true. The leaks and toxic briefings have dried up. I think United backed off when Ratcliffe came in an then appointed Berrada. Liverpool calmed down after Klopp left. Arsenal and Spurs stopped after Lewis and Levy left. Parry seems to have kept his head down at the EFL and Bayern seem to have gone easy since Vinny took over. These could just be coincidences but it does make you think.
So true. The leaks and toxic briefings have dried up. I think United backed off when Ratcliffe came in an then appointed Berrada. Liverpool calmed down after Klopp left. Arsenal and Spurs stopped after Lewis and Levy left. Parry seems to have kept his head down at the EFL and Bayern seem to have gone easy since Vinny took over. These could just be coincidences but it does make you think.