PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[halfcenturyup]

Why does any tribunal? Sometimes it happens, sometimes a case is super complex, sometimes they can't find the time to settle the decision. They wouldn't accept the decision is unsafe, it is just a risk for them at this stage. I stress, it is not going to be an easy argument to run.

Fair enough. It just seems to me that, given the high-profile nature of this case (on which, I think, everyone agrees) it would be hugely embarrassing for the panel members to even have people talk about such an eventuality, let alone having it brought up in an appeal context, whatever the result of that appeal.

Unless, of course, there is some unknown reason which justifies why it is taking so much longer than expected. Let's face it - most commentators were expecting a judgment last summer. It has now taken three times as long as that. Which, I suppose brings us to the debate around just how unexpectedly complex this case is and, more interestingly, why?

 

[johnny crossan]

Which, I suppose brings us to the debate around just how unexpectedly complex this case is and, more interestingly, why?

Consequences .....possibly dire consequences for one of the parties?

 

[manimanc]

Why does any tribunal? Sometimes it happens, sometimes a case is super complex, sometimes they can't find the time to settle the decision. They wouldn't accept the decision is unsafe, it is just a risk for them at this stage. I stress, it is not going to be an easy argument to run.

Sometimes allegations get thrown when desperation enters the game.
Sometimes allegations get levelled at an organisation when it exposes faults and flaws.
This case isn't super complex.
This case is red cartel v city.
It's the yanks v the middle East.

Like Khaldoon says, I can't wait for him to talk about the last 3 years, he is ready to annihilate these morons who disrespected his principles and his good nature.

"And I think to myself, what a wonderful world..."

 

[Ho Chi Man City]

Are you from Birmingham?

Reminds me of the time the Dippers were getting kitted out for their Wembley suits, the Tailor said to Collymore, (“Pep, Stan Collymore, who?) “do you want a kipper tie?

The Ulrika bashing wanker said “two sugars”.

 

[halfcenturyup]

The volume of material or the length of the hearing isn’t necessarily a direct function of the complexity of the case. Often the most grandiose and protracted of proceedings can boil down to a very simple principle. The Jaffa Cake VAT dispute being a case in point. The principle that arose from that determination is entirely straightforward. You don’t need to be a legal professional to grasp that.

So not undeniably.

But accept it most likely is.

I recognise that lawyers are always prone to caution when talking about cases, so let me take this and run with it for you.

About complexity, there was no-one saying this case was so complex it could take 18 months to get from the hearing to an initial liability judgment. There was talk of three or four years if the full process was to be taken into account - liability, appeal, sanction, appeal, possible arbitration. But it has been three and a half years since the allegations were referred and we still aren't at the liability phase yet.

No-one is disputing there would have been an enormous amount of evidence, but does that really make the allegations more complex?

There are, as far as we know, no complex legal issues to be determined here, no complicated precedents to be set. It's just a question of whether the PL's interpretations of certain emails and other documents is sufficient to prove the allegations or whether the club's counter-evidence is "irrefutable" enough for the panel to consider the PL's evidence to be insufficient.

I am still struggling with the idea of the case being so much more complex than even the most well-informed commentators were talking about a year ago.

On the other hand, I am reminded of the reported surprise in the Premier League and within certain clubs as to the aggressive nature of the club's defence. I find it hard to believe the PL didn't think the club would aggressively defend its position as a matter of routine, so is it unreasonable to suggest the club's defence has opened up some new battlefronts of which we are currently unaware, but which could explain just why the initial liability judgment is taking so long?

 

[JASR]

i think I posted this a few years ago, on this thread… and here we are

 

[wolviedinho]

Fair enough. It just seems to me that, given the high-profile nature of this case, on which, I think, everyone agrees it would be hugely embarrassing for the panel members to even have people talk about such an eventuality, let alone having it brought up in an appeal context, whatever the result of that appeal.

Unless, of course, there is some unknown reason which justifies why it is taking so much longer than expected. Let's face it - most commentators were expecting a judgment last summer. It has now taken three times as long as that. Which, I suppose brings us to the debate around just how unexpectedly complex this case is and, more interestingly, why?

Don’t forget the Chelsea stuff mate. Everyone had them deducted points, transfer bans. Mass squad sale, breaching profit and sustainability. The media didn’t pay much attention but when they did it was along the lines of chavs are in serious trouble.

What happened next? Club sells the hotel to itself. The latest lenient league approach didn’t bother punishing them due to Chelsea’s reporting and co operating on fraud actually committed to gain sporting advantage.

So unless we are about to be blindsided it’s a not guilty on 2 points. No fraud took place & 2 no information available to prove the first.

The league wanted the club to own up to its alleged behaviour namely sponsorship inflation. Once we said get stuffed the 115 happened. It’s all a power play by some clubs using the league. We have seen it with the champions league stuff and super league. The top clubs don’t want competition and certainly don’t want to share the revenue. The league is constantly undermined.

 

[LesBleuMiserable]

Reminds me of the time the Dippers were getting kitted out for their Wembley suits, the Tailor said to Collymore, (“Pep, Stan Collymore, who?) “do you want a kipper tie?

The Ulrika bashing wanker said “two sugars”.

I thought it was Davina McCall

 

[LesBleuMiserable]

Nice view from this one...

View attachment 194465

Is this somewhere in the north east?

 

[SilverFox2]

I think he’s started negotiations, you need to give me what I want if you want my silence.

Mr Lewis from Spurs fired himself with Insider Trading being "exposed".
Mr Levy has chosen personal reasons to go along with Mr Lewis from Arsenal.

Purely coincidentally of course City are just glad these people no longer form the backbone of the PL decision making hierarchy.

 

[remember arthur mann]

Roll on the World Cup it's better than nothing :-)

You might have to rethink that after watching last night's shite.

 

[cheekybids]

Mr Lewis from Spurs fired himself with Insider Trading being "exposed".
Mr Levy has chosen personal reasons to go along with Mr Lewis from Arsenal.

Purely coincidentally of course City are just glad these people no longer form the backbone of the PL decision making hierarchy.

It’s the Arsenal Lewis in this instance

Inside Tim Lewis’ Arsenal exit, the rise of Josh Kroenke and what it means for the club

The departure of vice-chair Tim Lewis last week came as a shock to many but it heralds the start of a new era at Arsenal

www.nytimes.com

 

[dannyboiblue]

Its obviously taken this long as them fuckwits have tried everything to pin something on us and now have no clue how to tell the footballing world they fucked up.

 

[NZBlue]

The mens list are a right looking shady bunch, starting with Michael Barrymore up to Andy Murray, with Ian Wright and Graham Norton in between them.

That is a mental image I really didn't want

 

[1961_vintage]

Is this somewhere in the north east?

South west - it's down in Cornwall.

 

[Cassandra]

Its obviously taken this long as them fuckwits have tried everything to pin something on us and now have no clue how to tell the footballing world they fucked up.

Perhaps they were asked while they were at it to decide whether it’s a muffin or a barm?

 

[Tuearts right boot]

Reminds me of the time the Dippers were getting kitted out for their Wembley suits, the Tailor said to Collymore, (“Pep, Stan Collymore, who?) “do you want a kipper tie?

The Ulrika bashing wanker said “two sugars”.

I thought that was Noddy Holder

 

[Coatigan]

Any confidence will be based on what he knows has gone on. Khaldoon will know if we’ve breached any rules. Like a shoplifting suspect knows if he’s shoplifted.

If you know you haven’t committed an offence you’re going to be extremely confident you aren’t getting convicted, no matter what the noise from the other side is.

What if he is 'wrong'?

What if it is a matter of interpretation, and what he KNOWS that City have done nothing wrong is within his/their interpretation of the rules and accounting practice.

Till the verdict is out, and we are officially cleared, the confidence is just confidence mate. I love seeing it as much as the next blue, but I still await the verdict. Hence while we all keep coming back to this thread.

 

[Chris in London]

At the end of a hearing would they have summarised what had been heard for instance or does it just end with we’ll be in touch.

I just imagine you’d say we’ve heard a lot, some very concerning evidence of x & clear evidence of y or some unethical behaviour etc etc

Usually just “you’ve given us a lot to think about, we will let you have our decision as soon as we can”

 

[Coatigan]

I actually think it’s 2 personally.

What is a 'nod'? What do you see that as, in your scenario.