PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Prestwich_Blue]

Genuine question…..why City of all clubs ? Do we have a rich history of cooking the books, cheating & general underhandedness ? Do our owners have that kind of reputation?

Er - Peter Swales?

 

[Bez]

Why did the PL take 4 years to investigate this? Some people are assuming they have been very thorough. Maybe they have. If so, why were there errors in the initial statement? If they had been so meticulous, why fuck it up at this stage? Whilst I have no knowledge of what has actually happened, it feels like they have dragged their feet on this and then suddenly sprung into action because of the govt proposals to regulate. Probably the PL did not know what to do and sat on it. No doubt the CEOs from the true and fair clubs put pressure on the PL. Unless there is some damning new evidence, what have they been doing all this time? Surely, City will know where the PL have been digging around because we are alleged to have not co-operated again. So again, what in the blazes have the PL been doing for the last 4 years. I think they have sat on it for most of that time, but that is only a guess.

 

[terraloon]

Think you're wrong here boss. CAS said if we had disclosed to UEFA what we did go CAS then the investigation wouldn't have got past the first chamber. We stopped cooperation with UEFA cos there were lots of leaks particularly from Tariq Panja and Rory Smith (I think). We even asked for the case to be thrown out because of this. No doubt there is a mountain of paper work to work through but that doesn't imply guilt

I think you are referring to the application by MCFC to be awarded costs.

CAS at 340 are in effect saying that had MCFC disclosed information earlier it’s possible ( CAS deliberately make the point that they aren’t in a position to say what UEFA would or wouldn’t conclude) that CAS may not have needed to be involved.
It’s quite a subtle difference but they are saying that full disclosure could possibly have dealt with the matter at appeal
As for the leaks the CAS commentary on that is all over the place and at one point I was wondering if they were inferring the leaks didn’t actually come from UEFA.

 

[John Wayne]

It is hard to believe. But the law, tax regulations and financial standards can be very widely interpreted, which is why we have things like tax tribunals.

True. But there is a clear distinction between tax avoidance and tax evasion. I would agree that the image rights is the least certain of the three issues you highlighted. Given the scope and nature of the allegations, it will be difficult for the PL to prove that we acted with malicious intent in sourcing things to Fordham. Last week I said we might be penalised for technical breaches and this is one such area where that might come into play - we can prove that we maintained a constant, honest dialogue with the authorities but may nevertheless be found to have been wrong.

 

[stonerblue]

Has @Prestwich_Blue done us a charges breakdown?

 

[Jesus H Gabz]

Er - Peter Swales?

True…..but most of that was self defeating bad decision making incompetence, he was to City what Solskjaer was to the rags (in management) and every club distorted attendances in those days (and the rest) what went on under that comb-over we will never know

 

[terraloon]

I've just read it and to be honest, I don't see anything of real note that might've led to CAS to come to a different decision. There's reference in there to what constitutes a reasonable request for evidence and where that line is. I think what CAS are saying is that it's ambiguous. They also make the point that sponsors can't be expected by UEFA to tip up swathes of information. I also think it's important to note that City would've been worried about handing over certain bits of confidential information that may fall into the hands of our competitors. You only have to look at some of the people involved at UEFA's end to see that they have clear links to certain rival clubs.

For me, City provided plenty of evidence at the appeal to convincingly debunk what was being alleged. CAS also appears to infer that if City had offered up the witness evidence to UEFA in the first instance then it might never have got that far anyway and City may well have been cleared by UEFA, so I think it's a leap to suggest that if certain documents had been presented then that would've led to CAS coming to a different verdict.

And speaking of evidence, I still find it astonishing that of the time-barred evidence, UEFA were prepared to use one e-mail that pre-dated their own FFP rules - something which would've rendered that particular accusation irrelevant anyway.

My take on that section is that CAS are basically saying that there can be significant consequences should someone not fully disclose when requested

Unless I have missed something in another section of the CAS narrative it seemed that UEFA made a request to have be given sight of an un redacted full run of the emails that request was never met but because UEFA didn’t in effect properly follow up no adverse conclusion could be taken from the non production.

 

[Marklr]

Dropped a major bollock this morning. Scrolling Facebook with a pre work coffee and inevitably loads of articles on this subject.
And then the fuckers drag me in. Most of the anti City comments are beyond farcical and just can’t be left alone.
The Key is not to reply and that’s where I’ve fucked up.

I just tell them : "innocent until proven guilty, but if you're that desperate for us to be guilty of SOMETHING, then that's a sad reflection on you and the club you support."

It's that desperation that warms my heart. You have to stoop very low to WISH another club HAD cheated. It's to ease their pain.

 

[mrbelfry]

I think you are referring to the application by MCFC to be awarded costs.

CAS at 340 are in effect saying that had MCFC disclosed information earlier it’s possible ( CAS deliberately make the point that they aren’t in a position to say what UEFA would or wouldn’t conclude) that CAS may not have needed to be involved.
It’s quite a subtle difference but they are saying that full disclosure could possibly have dealt with the matter at appeal
As for the leaks the CAS commentary on that is all over the place and at one point I was wondering if they were inferring the leaks didn’t actually come from UEFA.

It's been a while since I've read the document fully so I may have misremembered but my point still stands that your point was wrong ;)

I read the paragraphs you referred to earlier and I think you have also misrepresented those. The issue under discussion is what UEFA had reasonable expectation of receiving from City and then what inference could be drawn from City's non-compliance which in effect is little because UEFA stopped asking and said they were cool to proceed with the answers we had given.

This does not equate to the scenario you presented in the post I replied to. Of course I may also be reading stuff but the words "no evidence" should be easy enough to understand

 

[horlock_was_super]

Those were the days. When we were everyone's 2nd favourite team...

There were many times I wondered why they were my first favourite team!
Then I discovered Holts bitter!