MrCheeseGrater
Well-Known Member
We'll buy your club and burn it down
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
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 11,959
Why is everyone so literal these days? I doubt very much the club think 95% of the alleged breaches are "off the table". Whatever that means. I am sure they are taking them all deadly seriously. But the intent of the message was clearly an indication that the club feels, probably correctly, that most of the alleged breaches will be cleared by additional evidence given to the panel, as they were at CAS.One thing for certain is 95% is certainly not off the table. City might be happy to out on a fake smile and let that be leaked but 95% not being on the table is nonsense.
nmc
Well-Known Member
The rule is that one person MUST have a legal qualification. All three could if necessary but I'd expect at least one person with a finance background.
Simon Jordan?
Spanishbob
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2020
- Messages
- 1,200
- Team supported
- Manchester City
Definitely no expert on these matters but tolmies hairdo did state he has spoken to somebody who has inside Knowledge of what’s going on inside city and said 95% of the charges are off the table. My only niggling doubt is the remaining 5% and what it potential means and is it defensible.Why is everyone so literal these days? I doubt very much the club think 95% of the alleged breaches are "off the table". Whatever that means. I am sure they are taking them all deadly seriously. But the intent of the message was clearly an indication that the club feels, probably correctly, that most of the alleged breaches will be cleared by additional evidence given to the panel, as they were at CAS.
Wardley Blue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 19 Mar 2021
- Messages
- 133
- Team supported
- Manchester City
You certainly live up to your name.One thing for certain is 95% is certainly not off the table. City might be happy to out on a fake smile and let that be leaked but 95% not being on the table is nonsense.
SilverFox2
Well-Known Member
Perhaps another point is that the 3 on the CAS panel still managed to make it 2 to 1 in our favor rather than 3 to 0 despite being all legally qualified and presumably been guided by the Chairman.No, when non-lawyers are on the panel their approach is usually framed by the chair - ie, the "issues we have to decide are A, B, and C" and "the evidence on issue A is as follows..." Their decision is their own based on their own view of the actual evidence.
The burden of proof remains on the Premier League. They have to persuade the panel that it is more likely than not that we are guilty of the breaches alleged. But as we've discussed before, the evidence needed to satisfy the panel that we are guilty of conduct that amounts to serious criminal offences will need to be very cogent indeed.
jaiguruKun
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Mar 2011
- Messages
- 5,720
Perhaps another point is that the 3 on the CAS panel still managed to make it 2 to 1 in our favor rather than 3 to 0 despite being all legally qualified and presumably been guided by the Chairman.
My impression of that is that it was a face-saving exercise and they did not want to make it seem like a complete humiliation to UEFA.
tolmie's hairdoo
Well-Known Member
One thing for certain is 95% is certainly not off the table. City might be happy to out on a fake smile and let that be leaked but 95% not being on the table is nonsense.
Completely wrong.
They are insistent 95 per cent of the shit thrown at the wall is in triplicate and the majority of it will be dismissed on the first day.
Chris in London
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 13,328
Perhaps another point is that the 3 on the CAS panel still managed to make it 2 to 1 in our favor rather than 3 to 0 despite being all legally qualified and presumably been guided by the Chairman.
I don't think that's quite right. There were a series of issues that CAS had to decide, and whilst I don't think they were all 3-0, I don't think they were all 2-1 either. There were certainly areas where the CAS ruling points out that a majority of the panel thought X, Y or Z. However that was not said in relation to every issue. It seems to follow that in other areas the panel was unanimous.
It's some time since I've looked at the ruling in detail, I should add, that's just my recollection.