PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[SatOnTheWall]

The caveat is that we'll be found guilty of none cooperation.

Why will we be found guilty of this? Is there evidence that we did not cooperate? If we have provided an “extensive and irrefutable body of evidence” (City’s words) that proves our innocence, how can we have not cooperated?

The panel can’t just randomly make stuff stick without proper evidence simply because the premier league want them to.

Someone please correct me if I am wrong anywhere here.

 

[Keith Moon]

The season isn’t over until the 115 decision comes out. A win there would mean more to the club than a Champions League title. So hopefully we’ll have another parade in a few weeks.

 

[StillBluessinceHydeRoad]

The caveat is that we'll be found guilty of none cooperation. Even if all the other charges are false, the media, rival fans and the general public will use that as justification that the club lost. There is no way we can 'win'.

We delayed and delayed and delayed until 114 of the charges were time barred.

 

[Keith Moon]

Why will we be found guilty of this? Is there evidence that we did not cooperate? If we have provided an “extensive and irrefutable body of evidence” (City’s words) that proves our innocence, how can we have not cooperated?

The panel can’t just randomly make stuff stick without proper evidence simply because the premier league want them to.

Someone please correct me if I am wrong anywhere here.

My guess is that we’ve probably used a similar strategy to the one we used against UEFA. The Premier League may not have been given direct access to certain key individuals they wanted to question — for example, they could have asked to interview HH Sheikh Mansour, which realistically was never going to happen.

Instead, those individuals may have provided their evidence directly at the hearing. That would make sense if City’s position is that they do not fully trust the PL’s investigative process.

The CAS panel itself noted that if some of the witnesses who eventually testified at the hearing had been interviewed during UEFA’s investigation, City might never have been banned from the Champions League in the first place. So it’s not entirely implausible that something similar has happened here.

 

[johnny crossan]

Surely they are just a small group of wholly anonymous posters who should just fuck off X.

OK I'll leave it there.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Especially us wholly anonymous ones.

Fuck off X

 

[Norbiton]

You know it did cross my mind that they've hammered them to cover the legal costs then say to the clubs who'd normally have to shell out that they're disappointed with the 115 result and as such they won't ask them all for a percentage to keep the tyranny of the majority onside.....shithouses.

Edit...just got up and buzzing for the day, I don't think they've actually been fined however, the shithouse comment for Masters and his wanker buddies still stands.

The Southampton case has nothing to do with the Premier League does it?

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

If one person knows, everyone knows.

That's patently not true though. At least 4 people know - the 3 panel members and Murray Rosen.

 

[johnnytapia]

That's patently not true though. At least 4 people know - the 3 panel members and Murray Rosen.

I meant anyone at the club, up to and including the Sheikh.
Not a single person would be able to keep this wholly to themselves, absolutely nobody. Khaldoon, Soriano, nobody.

 

[Keith Moon]

That's patently not true though. At least 4 people know - the 3 panel members and Murray Rosen.

Rosen should only have administrative awareness, not actual insight into the panel’s legal reasoning or the outcome of the case. Otherwise, City could potentially raise objections regarding independence or procedural unfairness on appeal. The club has already signalled that it believes there is a potential issue, given that he is reportedly an Arsenal fan.

 

[mattcity5]

I meant anyone at the club, up to and including the Sheikh.
Not a single person would be able to keep this wholly to themselves, absolutely nobody. Khaldoon, Soriano, nobody.

Dunno, I think Khaldoon could.

He's been saying "we've done nothing wrong" from the start. All he's had to do is continue saying that in the background. Nobody would know if he'd had word or if it was still just his belief.

 

[johnnytapia]

Dunno, I think Khaldoon could.

He's been saying "we've done nothing wrong" from the start. All he's had to do is continue saying that in the background. Nobody would know if he'd had word or if it was still just his belief.

Politely disagree. If he’s been told of the outcome someone else would hear (wife son etc) tgen someone else, then….

 

[Corky]

Why will we be found guilty of this? Is there evidence that we did not cooperate? If we have provided an “extensive and irrefutable body of evidence” (City’s words) that proves our innocence, how can we have not cooperated?

The panel can’t just randomly make stuff stick without proper evidence simply because the premier league want them to.

Someone please correct me if I am wrong anywhere here.

Non-cooperation is the easiest thing to prove.

If you are asked to provide your last 3 months' bank statements and don't it would be non-cooperation, no matter what else you provide. If it is reasonable to provide something and you don't it would be non-cooperation, however it would be reasonable to be given a warning first.

 

[mattcity5]

Politely disagree. If he’s been told of the outcome someone else would hear (wife son etc) tgen someone else, then….

Probably yeah. I think it's possible though.

No idea of Khaldoon's family but they'd not be going to our media, and if they say anything to friends it just ends up as watered down rumours, which may not be trusted.

 

[Norbert D]

That's patently not true though. At least 4 people know - the 3 panel members and Murray Rosen.

Would it be fair to say a lot of senior clerks who are collating the draft will also know?
It seems stretching the bounds of reality to think our legal team and by definition Khaldoon don’t know how this is going.

It kind of reminds me of the plethora of reports of abuse that came out after Jimmy Savile died, to me, a pleb and not ITK I just thought he was an odd eccentric old duffer who did a lot charity work, he even had a huge ceremony in Leeds with his casket carried by the Royal Marines. A few months later when the scandal broke, it appeared every man and his dog in the entertainment industry knew exactly what he was up to. I wonder when the 115 finally goes public it will turn out everyone knew, except us the plebs.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Politely disagree. If he’s been told of the outcome someone else would hear (wife son etc) tgen someone else, then….

I remember reading a few years ago that a UAE delegation went to Russia. They had the usual talks involving officials then Putin asked to speak to Sheikh Mohammed privately. MBZ agreed, on condition Khaldoon was also in the room.

Do you really think that man can't keep a secret?

 

[Goodlove]

Looking to be calmed down by someone in the know but some of Pep’s comments have made me spiral a bit and I’ve always been in the ‘nothing will come of it, we are innocent’ camp

 

[halfcenturyup]

I remember reading a few years ago that a UAE delegation went to Russia. They had the usual talks involving officials then Putin asked to speak to Sheikh Mohammed privately. MBZ agreed, on condition Khaldoon was also in the room.

Do you really think that man can't keep a secret?

This. Billion dollar deals revolve around complete confidentiality and secrecy. All the people involved who are in a position to know anything important are more than capable of keeping quiet.

 

[Gordyola]

Why will we be found guilty of this? Is there evidence that we did not cooperate? If we have provided an “extensive and irrefutable body of evidence” (City’s words) that proves our innocence, how can we have not cooperated?

The panel can’t just randomly make stuff stick without proper evidence simply because the premier league want them to.

Someone please correct me if I am wrong anywhere here.

We didnt cooperate during the PL's investigation refusing to hand over what the club regarded as commercially sensitive documents However City lost a commercial court case when they tried to get a rolling on what they did have to hand over, they would have then have to adhere to the ruling and once it went to the IC then they had no choice and neither did the PL so Pannick would have seen all the evidence
OS, maybe initially guilty but subsequently not

 

[halfcenturyup]

Looking to be calmed down by someone in the know but some of Pep’s comments have made me spiral a bit and I’ve always been in the ‘nothing will come of it, we are innocent’ camp

Really?