PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

chaddblue said:
The interview suggests city are quite a bit more than just confident

And bear in mind that this ‘wonderful chat’ line isn’t an off the cuff remark. Those interviews are heavily scripted and could quite easily have been edited out
Click to expand...
I just don't think "city are very confident" is news, they've been incredibly consistent on this, and you can drive yourself mad trying to decode deeper meanings in otherwise straightforward statements.
 
rm16 said:
Yeah I find it hard to believe that with these guys experience in the global business world that they would a) invest a load of money and then b) risk it all by breaking rules or even fail to understand the rules and accidentally break them (but thats not what the charges are anyway). Possible that they read the rules and then found loopholes the prem league are now trying to back date charges against.
Click to expand...

“found loopholes the prem league”…..this is what I’ve always thought from the start
 
Ho Chi Man City said:
How as she made a living from being shit at everything she does? Her and Clare Balding, more annoying than an insect bite on the scrotal sac.
Click to expand...
Funnily enough I used to dislike Davina but then I stumbled upon a pod about her talking addiction. Before she got on tv she was a drug addict. Fair play to her for turning it around.
 
waspish said:
The case is so complex and they don’t seem in any rush either, They are doing other things work apart from this I suppose to.

Slbsn is usually right for me so I take his take than most..

Just hope we ain’t he this time next year waiting..
Click to expand...
That's the thing at this stage the thought of it dragging into next season is unbearable for many of us. Complexities and time constraints on the panel are excuses which are starting to run out of road at this stage. It's past time now for a verdict.
 
Coatigan said:
What is a 'nod'? What do you see that as, in your scenario.
Click to expand...
Just a brief communication to MCFC and the PL to inform them on the overall findings and which ways it’s all gone, with the write up to follow.

I’m guessing of course but I think there’s something in what PB says.
 
abu13 said:
Had a random thought yesterday, what if something has come up in the hearing that compromises one or more of the redshirts and they have taken legal action to stop the findings being released while they themselves prepare a defence.
Click to expand...
How would that club know that they needed to take legal action if the result isn’t known?
 
You know in all of this. Let us say we were found guilty of serious charges and they relegated us or deducted a lot of points which guaranteed our relegation, may I ask one question to all.

1 - Will it diminish your love for Manchester City because I know for fucking sure it wont mine!!

I will love my club till my last breath and whatever happens it doesn't really matter
 
Ban-jani said:
Just a brief communication to MCFC and the PL to inform them on the overall findings and which ways it’s all gone, with the write up to follow.

I’m guessing of course but I think there’s something in what PB says.
Click to expand...

I am always surprised people think the panel would take into account the needs of the sport by co-ordinating a release date with the parties, but wouldn't take into account the needs of the sport by providing an informal update, and the possibility of a negotiation, when the consequences of their judgment will have a profound effect on the sport, one way or the other.

Doesn't mean I know what is going on, of course :)
 
Lord Blue said:
How would that club know that they needed to take legal action if the result isn’t known?
Click to expand...
Say for instance that we had clear evidence that we presented of another club putting pressure on the PL who were hiding huge losses elsewhere. Maybe the Cayman Islands. And the PL treating them with less accountability.
 
WRicko said:
So why the delay ! Why have you been so wrong on time scales ?

Also I take issue with what you have said 10 or a 100 emails discussing Etihad sponsorship doesn’t make it more complex especially if what’s on those emails could have been condensed down to a few. It does take more time to read but that’s not the most important thing.

As far as we know there is not something setting.

However perhaps the reason for the delay such as improper conduct by the Premier League.
Click to expand...
You managed to pack a lot of nonsense into a relatively short post there.

The delay is due to the complexity (which may have been mentioned once or a hundred times). Stefan has always maintained that timescales are purely informed guesswork on his part.

Do you really think that the only evidence considered is 10 or a 100 emails?

"As far as we know there is not something setting" makes no sense.

Your last line is just laugable.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
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.
Click to expand...
I'm not convinced that the substantive issues in this case were terribly complex in themselves, compared to other commercial legal cases.
  • Did Etihad and other AD sponsors properly fulfil their obligations under the commercial contracts? That's probably the biggest substantive issue but it isn't particularly complex. Unless the PL can show, on the balance of probabilities, that they didn't then we win that one.
  • Are Etihad & Manchester City related parties under the relevant accounting standards? 2 or 3 days to cover that maybe.
  • Was Fordham a deliberate device to conceal relevant expenses. We know why we set up the Fordham arrangement and either declared Fordham payments as part of player remuneration or we didn't, plus we had discussions about this with UEFA, who seemingly didn't have a problem.
  • The Mancini contract - was it a sham to hide expenses or did he fulfil it. It's not material in any case, and will possibly be time barred anyway, so I doubt much time was spent on it.
CAS dealt with the Etihad sponsorship issues in less than 2 days so I'd be surprised if we spent much more than 3 or 4 of the 10 weeks of the hearing on these issues. What probably took the bulk of the time I'd guess were the legal arguments over things like admissibility of evidence, limitation periods, elements of the process itself and how it had been applied, as well as other matters.

While there probably a huge number of documents delivered as a result of the discovery process, there's no guarantee that every single one will have been produced to support the pleadings during the 10 weeks.

The criminal case against my old bosses at Independent Insurance involved complex issues of insurance, reinsurance, claims reserving and other related matters, along with huge numbers of documents. But to make the case as simple as possible for the non-technical jury, the prosecution team whittled those documents down dramatically for evidence purposes. The vast majority weren't used in court.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top