PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

terraloon said:
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.
Click to expand...
You are right about 340 so perhaps I overstated how significant that was in the context. However it is not insignificant and still counters your claim ;)
 
Maly said:
This may help you bud

https://swissramble.substack.com/p/manchester-city-charged-by-the-premier
Click to expand...
Thanks for that. I might have missed that report. Easy and clear to read and understand.

Blame the accountants. Bunch of rags tripped us up.

Why have city not presented the proof needed to stop the investigation? If we are stonewalling the opposition to this extent. We must have decided that (a) we wanted an independent tribunal to fully clear us and take the media character assassination. Or (b) something in those accounts can be interpreted to show guilt and give the premier league the chance to follow through with their claims.

Grandstanding by the league. Only loser is city, and the fans. I can understand city not wanting to open the books with the leaks out of Uefa. I can’t get my head around the irrefutable proof v brand defamation. The relationship is poisonous now anyway.
 
Tricky_Trev said:
If we were found to be uncooperative in the UEFA case, I don’t see how we wouldn’t be here too. I doubt our strategy has changed too much in that regard. I don’t even see it as much of an assumption, it seems almost certain.
Click to expand...
We refused to cooperate with the UEFA investigative chamber because Leterme was leaking information, we went to CAS to get them to rule which we lost this was before the big CAS trial the leaks were the reason the fine was reduced by CAS from £30m to 10 but we admitted non cooperation so we had to be fined
With the PL we felt that it was unfair to give them confidential information as it could be leaked to rivals. We went to the high court and they ruled against us, we then appealed the decision to make the verdict public which was supported by PL however, the judge ruled that it was in the public interest he even commented that City had won 3 PLs during the i and thought it was odd how long it was taking a major dig at PL We then cooperated with PL maybe not as much as they would like though
 
wolviedinho said:
Thanks for that. I might have missed that report. Easy and clear to read and understand.

Blame the accountants. Bunch of rags tripped us up.

Why have city not presented the proof needed to stop the investigation? If we are stonewalling the opposition to this extent. We must have decided that (a) we wanted an independent tribunal to fully clear us and take the media character assassination. Or (b) something in those accounts can be interpreted to show guilt and give the premier league the chance to follow through with their claims.

Grandstanding by the league. Only loser is city, and the fans. I can understand city not wanting to open the books with the leaks out of Uefa. I can’t get my head around the irrefutable proof v brand defamation. The relationship is poisonous now anyway.
Click to expand...
Out of all the reports I’ve seen, I think this is the easiest for a layman to understand mate
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.