Search results

You can expect that the first few days of the hearing will be reading days where the panel will have written skeleton arguments that refer to a wider digital bundle with references to key docs. This will allow the panel to familiarise itself with the issues, the positions and the documents that...

Source?

I think it is much less likely that a sporting sanction would be appropriate for a non-cooperation finding. Sporting sanction should be reserved for sporting advantage. There is no realistic argument that non-cooperation created a sporting advantage if all other charges are not proven.

Looked again at this charge in light of some things yesterday regarding "the Premier League Rules applicable in those Seasons requiring a member club to include full details of manager remuneration in its relevant contracts with its manager" None of Q7/Q8/P7/P8 required anything but...

Funnily this point about the rules at the time came up on Twitter today The rule before 21/22 was very different

These concerns were bluntly dismissed in the Everton and Forest cases. Absolutely no chance of any traction on these points. Simple argument is that whilst it is a shame for [accused] fans, other teams and teams' fans are the real victims. As for compensation from the PL? Even less chance

Who knows. Maybe nobody except people making very simple statements.

Sure but I am sure most other clubs think and hope City are "guilty" - that is just the facts.

The Panel will have access to the trial bundles when things kick off. There will be a couple of days/a week of pre-reading allocated in the trial timetable. Both parties will submit their written openings (skeleton arguments) with references to the witness statements and super key evidential...

I didn't think there was anything wrong with the Athletic article myself. Some interesting quotes - the one on settlement I completely agree with, the one on the APT stuff, I completely disagree with. And of course a lot of old ground and stating the obvious. The APT case is not practically...

There would be a hearing with the IC on costs in all likelihood. City would say they should get their costs for everything except non-coop and the PL would probably say City should pay 50-70% of the PLs costs because they ultimately were found to have breached. Suspect City would still end up...

may get costs

Very likely nothing at all

Very unlikely anything has come from City. I suspect it is whispers in the game. It is public that City felt some aspects went well. Ultimately, it could mean anything. And the damages assessment is a separate hearing if City were to win. I wouldn't put much on that aspect of the piece.

No independent regulator would be involved in something like that matter

Not been ignored. Was a pretty big story. In the Athletic and Mail at least. The PL aren't going to investigate because they seeming approved the £40m so nothing to investigate. I assume on the share sale costs, they had pre-approval.

There was no leak. All of that information (it was actually wrong but ignore that) was known since 9 April.

Mid Jan

See other answer. Plus Forest (£2.5m as they were capped in the EFL). Maybe Fulham and Bmouth in EFL too

We don't know what City claimed. They didn't disclose any Covid losses in the 21/22 accounts. The key of the story is not Covid allowances which everyone got. It is 21/22 Covid allowances - Covid was finished after Summer 21 and UEFA disallowed the whole £40m from United per their accounts