PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Eccles Blue]

You don’t think maybe it’s because they were pressured into it by certain other clubs?

The nasty nine? ;-)

 

[domalino]

What have the PL said to make you think they are bullish?

The fact they are going us in the first place, they obviously think they have something on us.

It all depends on what city have done to cooperate.

With UEFA, City didn’t even present evidence in their defence until CAS.

The CFCB specifically asked for witness testimony (City’s main defence against the charges was the testimony of Pearce and Hogan that what was discussed in the email didn’t happen) and the club refused to give it until City were charged, convicted, banned, appealed and reached CAS

 

[LeonardoDaVnci]

CAS provided a justification why the stolen emails are admissible, basically if there is an over-riding "public interest" to do it then Swiss Law permits it's use. The PL Disciplinary Committee will see this as a green light, they will probably just copy it, tweak it and then paste it to suit. CAS included six emails, they are in the report. Either the PL have new significant evidence or they just fancied slinging shit at us for the beauty of reputational damage. CAS stated there was NOT SUFFICIENT evidence that the stolen emails were an accurate indicational of actual events... Here's exactly what they said with a pretty picture included:-

 

[halfcenturyup]

You don’t think maybe it’s because they were pressured into it by certain other clubs?

It's difficult to know, isn't it? Are they confident that the evidence they have will be upheld, or are they stuck in a process they don't really want, but have to see through to the end?

 

[BlueBas]

Presumably they can't find the club guilty of not obeying UFA's rules, only UEFA can do that surely, but they could find us guilty of providing falsified or misleading information to UEFA, if that is indeed the case?

They'll find us guilty of what CAS found us guilty of - not complying with UEFA FFP investigation. That'll be enough to fine us. And that will be enough for the press and rival fans to continue calling us cheats and that our titles are all tarnished. Fuck em all!

 

[Allnightlong]

I keep wondering the same thing. Surely we need to know what we're defending ourselves on before we can mount an actual defence?

this, surely we can have disclosure like in being arrested and interviewed by the police.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

Thought id read he’d admitted it a while back? Might be my old age playing tricks on me!!

My understanding of Portugese law is not great but I have been dipping into and out of the trial in the foreign media. Pinto has pleaded not guilty but has admitted asking for payment to return hacked documents to various football agents linked to Sporting Lisbon and Benfica. His absurd defence was that he was "just testing" to see if they would pay up as part of his "whistleblowing" activities and it wasn't really extortion! He has also admitted hacking into various bank accounts (including a pension fund) and transferring money into his own Swiss account which he then repaid later after cutting some deal with the bank where he helped them to prevent further thefts. It is all very strange. He is currently awaiting the verdict which is due in April.

 

[Dribble]

Suiting in 2023 doesn't mean it suited in earlier years.
It doesn't suit anyone trying to break in.
It suits those who are already in.

FFP still stunts our ability to invest what's needed into our squad as we see fit. The main advantage I can see for City in 2023 is it stunts Newcastle's ability to challenge as effectively as they could have done.

Isn't City being able to compete unhindered our main issue with FFP, not us wanting to stop more City's from living the dream?

 

[M18CTID]

Yes. Can't remember the page number :) It's in the accounting evidence section of the Etihad considerations IIRC.

Thanks - found it. A quick read indicates it was Etihad reps who ran the search. In any case, if ADUG had paid it to Etihad, I’m guessing it would be very difficult for Etihad to hide the true source of those payments from their auditors.

 

[Norman kneejerk]

CAS provided a justification why the stolen emails are admissible, basically if there is an over-riding "public interest" to do it then Swiss Law permits it's use. The PL Disciplinary Committee will see this as a green light, they will probably just copy it, tweak it and then paste it to suit. CAS included six emails, they are in the report. Either the PL have new significant evidence or they just fancied slinging shit at us for the beauty of reputational damage. CAS stated there was NOT SUFFICIENT evidence that the stolen emails were an accurate indicational of actual events... Here's exactly what they said with a pretty picture included:-

View attachment 69064

Exactly anyone who has worked in a large company would probably agree that if say the FD sends a note out about a certain event, he will copy in all relevant people e g department heads, treasurty, tax, legal, governance etc to action and make sure everything is done correctly. The Director is just providing the outline. It's too much like a film to say ohh look at this email, it's just a starting point.