I think they're reopening the case from 1906 to see if there's anything there they can pin on us.
Surely they have to say what sort of documents they want and what parts of the documents they want what it is they are looking for why they have suspicions ? We have already been cleared once and surely the panel has to be impartialAs you rightly say, Projectriver is the authority on this.
My interpretation of the judge's comments, which may be wrong, is based on many years experience of fraud investigation and, in particular, requiring production of documents under statutory powers. I have experience of subjects of enquiry using every method at their disposal, including Court hearings, to avoid producing documents for both honest and dishonest reasons. In our case, given that the enquiry is no more than a witch-hunt I'd have been disappointed if the club hadn't objected in every way possible.
The fact is, the PL have learned from UEFA and are watertight as far as leaks are concerned so nobody knows sufficient to answer your questions. All we do know is what was in the published judgements which Projectriver dealt with as fully as possible at the time.
An independent enquiry is (supposed to be) just that. The point is that (in theory) no "guilt: is assumed so no evidence of wrongdoing is required to launch an enquiry, suspicion is sufficient to ask for more information so that a conclusion can be reached. As far as I can see, it is established that under PL rules, they are entitled to ask for documents which they have done. We've said no and objected to the panel appointed to arbitrate.
On the face of it, based on what we can tell from the Judgement, it looks as though any delay is down to us for not co-operating. You can't then turn round and blame the investigating party for not concluding a case when documents it has requested haven't been produced much as we would like to.
Whether the enquiry is "impartial" and has been conducted fairly will, doubtless, be the subject of Court proceedings if (when) the PL decides it has enough evidence to take action against us.
So, the Daily Mail had nothing whatsoever to do with my post and you clearly have not read, or not understood, the Court case.
But the PL so called enquiry goes on. Started almost three years ago in response to a complaint from, guess who, it has yet to allege any breach. Surely this in in the realms of harassment by now
Surely they have to say what sort of documents they want and what parts of the documents they want what it is they are looking for why they have suspicions ? We have already been cleared once and surely the panel has to be impartial
At the moment it seems like they don’t know what we may have done don’t know what they want to see and it won’t be looked at independently
On that basis surely we are with in our right to refuse
Everton? (Don't laugh.)And so it continues from the Red Shirts and their followers.
United, Liverpool, Arsenal, Spurs, Chelsea? No6?
“There’s no doubt pressure on the Premier League from a group of clubs who are trying to address Man City,” he told Football Insider‘s Adam Williams.
“City, in the view of these clubs, are far too successful. They have fantastic recruitment and strategic policy. Everybody is rowing in the same direction.
“They are outperforming other clubs with similar incomes. This is a backdoor way of trying to rein them in.
“The clubs who wrote to the Premier League over City’s initial Uefa ban are trying to give them extra bullets in their pursuit of City.
“While Uefa’s investigation into City is over, it looks as though the Premier League’s investigation is still ongoing.
“Ther are clubs who are gunning for Man City. There’s clearly some bad blood between the sneaky six.”
Football Insider has been told by Kieran Maguire that Man City are being targeted by their Premier League rivals over new third-party legislation.www.footballinsider247.com
Don't have an account?Register now!