PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[waspish]

If it was made up bull, then surely they would have said NYCFC as that makes the most sense, the fact they didnt may mean its more likely to be true? Haha

There been news of this inter Miami wanting pep last week! So easy to say my mate or someone I know heard this! It’s bullshit

 

[Saddleworth2]

6587 pages and it boils down to:
The club believes completely they have won because they haven’t done anything wrong

Nobody knows we have won until the outcome is published and it hasn’t been.

 

[halfcenturyup]

6587 pages and it boils down to:
The club believes completely they have won because they haven’t done anything wrong

Nobody knows we have won until the outcome is published and it hasn’t been.

Nobody KNOWS we have won ....

 

[Stoned Rose]

I'm just saying that in many complex cases 2 well educated and experienced people can look at the same "evidence" and come to different conclusions regarding guilt. If this 3 man panel was a 100 man panel it would be extremely unlikely they would all come to the same conclusion regarding our guilt.

If you want to find evidence of guilt you are more likely to interpret evidence in a way that aligns with your predetermined opinion than if you are looking at the evidence completely free from bias and pressure of public opinion.

Not when guilt is binary as it will be in this case. We’ve either breached a rule or we haven’t.

Any panel member coming into this with predetermined opinion regarding the final outcome is extremely unlikely and would be wholly unprofessional.

Any panel member then trying to get the “evidence to fit” that predetermined opinion would be rumbled by the other panel members quicker than Katie Price kneels down and waits for a facial, be booted out and reported to their regulator,

They likely will have formed a preliminary view from the papers (bundle) but that will be based on opinion on what they’ve read and be their “up to here” view, a view which may well wax and wane in the hearing.

 

[Legalamb777]

I’d be amazed if we got total exoneration tbh. Winning on the substantive charges is all that really matters though.

Yeah…..we’ll probably get done for the ‘grass is the wrong length’ charge and it’ll be wall to wall news in the MSM,a World Cup in 2026…what World Cup?;)

 

[Stoned Rose]

Nobody KNOWS we have won ....

SEMANTICS.

 

[LeonardoDaVnci]

I'm just saying that in many complex cases 2 well educated and experienced people can look at the same "evidence" and come to different conclusions regarding guilt. If this 3 man panel was a 100 man panel it would be extremely unlikely they would all come to the same conclusion regarding our guilt.

If you want to find evidence of guilt you are more likely to interpret evidence in a way that aligns with your predetermined opinion than if you are looking at the evidence completely free from bias and pressure of public opinion.

This is a niggle at the back of my mind. I was called for jury service a while back, and in his opening remarks the judge explained that it was a retrial because the previous jury had failed to reach a verdict. As far as we could tell, no new evidence was presented to the second jury. If there was, we were not informed.
All I'm allowed to say is that a verdict was reached. When we were permitted to discuss the case after being dismissed — and only among ourselves, in accordance with the rules — we simply could not fathom why the first jury had been unable to decide. We hadn't a clue.
The huge difference, of course, was that we were just hoi polloi. There was also the highly dubious Prof Haas from CAS2020, who voted against us despite there being no evidence. However, Khaldoon's demeanour, body language, and positivity are all very, very encouraging.

 

[Vester]

Not when guilt is binary as it will in this case. We’ve either breached a rule or we haven’t.

Any panel member coming into this with predetermined opinion regarding the final outcome is extremely unlikely and would be wholly unprofessional.

Any panel member then trying to get the “evidence to fit” that predetermined opinion would be rumbled by the other panel members quicker than Katie Price kneels down and waits for a facial, be booted out and reported to their regulator,

They likely will have formed a preliminary view from the papers (bundle) but that will be based on opinion on what they’ve read and be their “up to here” view, a view which may well wax and wane in the hearing.

You might think that if a 100 different well educated and experienced people would all look at the evidence in a case as big and complex as this and without doubt every single one of them would come to the same conclusion. I do not. But I admire your trust in that the members of this independent panel being infallible.

 

[Stoned Rose]

You might think that if a 100 different well educated and experienced people would all look at the evidence in a case as big and complex as this and without doubt every single one of them would come to the same conclusion. I do not. But I admire your trust in that the members of this independent panel being infallible.

This is exactly why we don’t have 100 heads looking at it mate. Narrow the assessors to 3 and go with the majority. Come on its not rocket science.

 

[iwasthere1968]

Wonderful

I think you've just written the wording of the first big banner after the release of the verdict.

 

[Ban-jani]

I think you're getting ben doon mixed up with ben dover, easy mistake they're almost twins

I once represented a candidate called Anita Dash, still cracks me up today.

 

[Vester]

This is a niggle at the back of my mind. I was called for jury service a while back, and in his opening remarks the judge explained that it was a retrial because the previous jury had failed to reach a verdict. As far as we could tell, no new evidence was presented to the second jury. If there was, we were not informed.
All I'm allowed to say is that a verdict was reached. When we were permitted to discuss the case after being dismissed — and only among ourselves, in accordance with the rules — we simply could not fathom why the first jury had been unable to decide. We hadn't a clue.
The huge difference, of course, was that we were just hoi polloi. There was also the highly dubious Prof Haas from CAS2020, who voted against us despite there being no evidence. However, Khaldoon's demeanour, body language, and positivity are all very, very encouraging.

I agree that Khaldoons demeanor is encouraging. And I do truly believe that regardless of what the verdict will eventually be in this case, that the club has done nothing (or at least nothing major) wrong and that this is all coming from mainly US owners doing whatever they can and use all tricks up their sleeve to stop owners like ours from investing in their club rather than stealing from their clubs like themselves.

I'm not just as confident as others here that there is absolutely zero percent chance any of these panel members will feel pressure from the public opinion or has somehow been around football their lives and went into this case without having any opinion at all about the widely spread accusations against us from all directions in the last decade.

Not to mention:
If they provide a guilty verdict, they will get widely celebrated and no one except ourselves will question it.
If they say we are innocent, they will be widely seen as bribed idiots who let "the dirty oil money club and their owners get away with something everyone knows they are guilty of". Or something like that.

 

[Vester]

This is exactly why we don’t have 100 heads looking at it mate. Narrow the assessors to 3 and go with the majority. Come on its not rocket science.

If 5, 10 or 15 out of a 100 would provide a guilty verdict there is obviously not zero percent chance that 2 out of 3 can do it as well. Like you said, its not rocket science.

 

[iwasthere1968]

I’ve just poured myself a new pint ;-)

So have I , more tissues nurse!!!

 

[iwasthere1968]

Nobody KNOWS we have won ....

3 people know if we have

 

[Stoned Rose]

If 5, 10 or 15 out of a 100 would provide a guilty verdict there is obviously not zero percent chance that 2 out of 3 can do it as well. Like you said, its not rocket science.

But 15, 10 or 15 out of 100 wouldn’t be a majority mate. It would mean nothing re the outcome.

 

[Bluewood]

It’s been said before but seriously, a man as smart and powerful as Khaldoon doesn’t use the words he used today if he’s not supremely confident, I’d say near certain we’re winning this case. Nobody, even him will know for sure until the official verdict is announced, but he’ll know how the case played out and I’d be unbelievably surprised if we don’t see a positive outcome for City at this point.

I wanna say I genuinely cannot wait for the tears from rival fans and pundits when the verdict comes, but deep down i know it’ll just go from “Cheats,115” to “Cheats, You paid off the judges” haha.

Looking forward to moving on from this borefest anyways

 

[Dizbuster]

Ric - we've won. We know we've won. And we've known we've won for a while.

Yes, I agree 1000%. I've said all along and I've been quite aggressive in my comments about this at Goal.com and other sites that we may incur some penalties for an alleged lack of cooperation with this investigation but that we will be fully exonerated on all the substantive charges, and this time, it's full acquittal, since nothing will be time-barred. This was, at best, a PR exercise designed to hamstring our efforts to compete with the Red Cartel, especially with regard to recruitment of both players and coaching staff. The longer this has been drawn out, the greater the damage to the City brand. But now, it's time for a decision, and if we are correct that all this was a bunch of manure dressed up as a legitimate investigation, City will be in an enviable position. In addition, I have to wonder if City will prepare a lawsuit against the PL and even certain member clubs for conspiracy, restraint of trade, and/or other causes of action. If so, it would surely provide an opportunity to utilize legal discovery to subpoena private documents and communications which may provide evidence of criminal wrongdoing.

 

[bluwes]

Without pissing on your chips, he's been saying similar since the EPL dropped thr115 charges bombshell

This is different than saying we have irrefutable evidence. The evidence has now been heard. He chooses his words very carefully. He had no need to say a wonderful sit down. Believe me, we have come out on top in this

 

[mancboy]

I once represented a candidate called Anita Dash, still cracks me up today.

I once saw a patient called mustafa sheikh and i chuckled every time.