You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules
- Thread starter ayrshire_blue
- Start date
tolmie's hairdoo
Well-Known Member
Etihad haven't been defamed by the Premier League. Their name isn't mentioned once in the publicly released charges and the hearing will be held in private.
But we know from CAS that disguised owner investment is an accusation through Etihad?
If the same charges apply, then they are accused of being complicit, fraudulent?
CAS relied very heavily on witness statements but on the flip UEFAs expert witness was never afforded access to the full records . I can’t remember the quote but it was something like he had seen the tip-off the ice berg but not what went on below.
CAS weren’t in a position to test the witness statements because UEFA didnt have evidence to back up the emails although when the accounts were particularly made available the amounts and timing of payments was in accord with the second email.
People are reading too much into the CAS judgment. For 1 it’s in accord with Swiss Law and 2 it, ad it’s something I keep repeating UEFA didn’t pursue to the end the fact that some documents were never disclosed they in effect gave up on that approach had they focused on that it’s highly likely that CAS would have come to the same conclusion as UEFA.
I just can’t see how City will even remotely be able to defend full non disclosure( if that’s what happened) when there was a HC ruling on the matter and indeed a PL arbitration panel has likewise confirmed contractual obligations
When the PL and City disclose in full the evidence they will rely on at the tribunal other than the hearing where that evidence will be examined it’s unlikely that even if it goes to a further hearing that either party will be allowed to reduce any further info.
Just out of curiosity, who do you actually support?
Dubai Blue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 23 Jul 2007
- Messages
- 15,143
Doesn't matter. We're never going to hear any of the details if we're found not guilty. So there wouldn't be any grounds for Etihad to have a case against the Premier League.But we know from CAS that disguised owner investment is an accusation through Etihad?
If the same charges apply, then they are accused of being complicit, fraudulent?
tolmie's hairdoo
Well-Known Member
Not sure we will need to.
The landscape may be very different when this over: independent regulator on the horizon, ME owners for United, AD owning Liverpool's main sponsor, Instigator clubs weakened, City's position strengthened etc etc .......
Let's see how the chips fall in the next few months :)
I thought City had already run out of chips ;)
feelymcfeel
Well-Known Member
Depends on the monarch surely.KC if you are male...QC if you are female...it's easy enough mate.
M18CTID
Well-Known Member
ChelseaJust out of curiosity, who do you actually support?
The perfect fumble
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 24,095
Apologies if already posted....
BillyShears
Well-Known Member
CAS relied very heavily on witness statements but on the flip UEFAs expert witness was never afforded access to the full records . I can’t remember the quote but it was something like he had seen the tip-off the ice berg but not what went on below.
CAS weren’t in a position to test the witness statements because UEFA didnt have evidence to back up the emails although when the accounts were particularly made available the amounts and timing of payments was in accord with the second email.
People are reading too much into the CAS judgment. For 1 it’s in accord with Swiss Law and 2 it, ad it’s something I keep repeating UEFA didn’t pursue to the end the fact that some documents were never disclosed they in effect gave up on that approach had they focused on that it’s highly likely that CAS would have come to the same conclusion as UEFA.
I just can’t see how City will even remotely be able to defend full non disclosure( if that’s what happened) when there was a HC ruling on the matter and indeed a PL arbitration panel has likewise confirmed contractual obligations
When the PL and City disclose in full the evidence they will rely on at the tribunal other than the hearing where that evidence will be examined it’s unlikely that even if it goes to a further hearing that either party will be allowed to reduce any further info.
As far as I understand it, City's position both to UEFA/CAS and the PL is that the documents they're asking to be produced, that haven't been produced, don't actually exist.
In terms of CAS testing the witness statements, they said quite clearly that UEFA did not produce any evidence nor witnesses who contradicted the City witnesses, and furthermore it was unlikely that City's witnesses had lied. Their standing as professionals is I believe taken into account when deciding whether they are to be believed or not.
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 9,932
They are going to be confident with that many charges or they wouldnt have charged us , we are confident to, poker face from both sides but yes high stakes
Dont get wrapped up in the "that many charges" argument. There will be a handful of charges, each of which affects many rules and many years. I would be surprised if it is more than 6 actual issues. A Burnley handful, if you will.
I have some experience writing "offence sheets" in a previous life, and its the easiest thing in the world to get a long list by putting in everything you can, every time it's possible.