BerkshireBlue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 19 Jan 2015
- Messages
- 4,003
go ahead and post the proof it wasn't covered
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
go ahead and post the proof it wasn't covered
go ahead and post the proof it wasn't covered
There you go. 93 pages of proof that Fordham wasn't raised at CAS.
mancity2012_eamo
Well-Known Member
Harumph!You're quite correct. If A accuses B, A has to present their evidence to support the accusation & give B the opportunity to offer a defence & supporting counter evidence.
What you can't do is accuse someone of wrongdoing with zero evidence & challenge them to disprove the claim, or ask for evidence to prove the claim.
You make the claim, you provide your evidence & the other side can either accept the claim in whole or part & provide whatever necessary supporting evidence.
This is why the only long-term solution is an independent regulator & the scrapping of FFP & the fair workable revision of football finances & debt management.
BerkshireBlue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 19 Jan 2015
- Messages
- 4,003
so UEFA decided it was then fine then. I don't see any issues at all with this
There you go. 93 pages of proof that Fordham wasn't raised at CAS.
Chris in London
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 13,328
BDO certainly won’t give a shit
i disagree
they don’t like being made to look fools
Chris in London
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 13,328
cheekybids
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 10,431
I have been fairly frustrated by how uninformed opposition fans are about the CAS case and the charges against City in general, but when we have our own fans so confidently spouting blatantly false stuff like this I obviously am being too harsh on the rest.
It’s almost as if only independent expert financial & legal minds can understand & judge the case. (Counts me out on 3 fronts)
Meanwhile we are bombarded with noise often deliberately disingenuous by those who will have been informed of the facts so I sympathise with some of our fans having a go.
These last 10 years has made me see the world & question all news & headlines on far more serious topics than football. What a truely shit, greedy disgusting world we live in. I can’t stand liars but we really are bombarded with lies in the media.
Nor the media. They will all be able to defend any lawsuits on the basis that they were simply reporting the news and discussing topics in the public interest. The fact they spin it against us is not something we can stop in the legal arena.There is nothing that PL is doing that is against their rules.
There is no avenue to suing them over this after we win.
Some City fans need to understand this that we won't be 'going after' the PL, just like we didnt go after UEFA.
Nor the other clubs. It isn’t our owners style. It will not happen. I assure you.
However will the independent regulator receive an anonymous packet of neatly packaged information that causes them to investigate the Nobhead 9.. well…that’s something else entirely…
Last edited:
I am not sure but feel that there may be an element of double jeopardy to this. I do not think the PL can add any punishment to something we have already been punished for by CAS for failing to cooperate. I am Certain that Lord Pannick will run that argument. We did not cooperate, we admitted it and we received a €10m fine for it.One or two of the charges are for not complying with UEFA rules and the only one we were actually found guilty on by CAS was for non-cooperation with UEFA, so the PL will probably fine us for not cooperating with UEFA and themselves. Can they fine us for getting fined by UEFA?
Although the PL will be able to show we did not cooperate with UEFA I am not Sure they can add any further punishment.
I dont think that’s correct. We are only obligated to provide relevant financial documents. Not any document they ask for.Because the PL rules say we must provide any info they ask for.
City’s case has always been that they provided relevant financial documents but nothing else is relevant unless it is a specific document that they can point to in terms of the document itself existing and why it is relevant.
This is why I think the failure to cooperate with PL charge will be difficult to uphold. They would have to show that we failed to provide specific documents, not refused to hand over the intricate workings of City’s business model. If they had been specific and not engaged on a fishing expedition then we would have already handed over the documents.
Last edited: