Like all blues I’m worried sick about this but trying to be objective here’s my twopennorth as a retired lawyer but not in the same league as petrusha and the other learned minds. Anyway….
I recall that City turned down a deal of something like a one year ban from the ECL and thinking at the time they must be very confident of their position to do so bearing in mind the inevitable uncertainty of any legal action, the more so the more complex the issues but were proved right to have done so.
I personally do not think the impartiality of the panel will be an issue, after all if a decision is perverse it may be capable of challenge despite what the PL rules may otherwise state and it would require people who should know better ignoring cogent evidence and putting their own reputations and credibility at stake.
Nor can I imagine City (or the owners/directors) would, having access to informed and impartial advice from their own Legal and accountancy advisers, placed themselves at risk of criminal charges. If they have then they would deserve all they get.
Rather it may be that the Premier league criteria are in some way different from the UEFA criteria such that compliance with UEFA rules, which CAS confirmed was the case, does not necessarily mean that we would not be in breach of PL rules. If that is so then it makes something of a mockery of the whole thing anyway.
In my opinion unless there is some technical breach of PL rules because of such difference, or there is additional evidence of which CAS were not aware, then in view of City’s confidence it seems likely that, apart from non cooperation, we should be ok. As to non cooperation our Counsel will no doubt have powerful reasons to put forward on City’s behalf (eg fishing expedition) for not producing whatever documents are in question.
Also it beggars belief that the PL charges give the appearance of having been prepared by the office junior (no disrespect to that job) without at least checking that the rules we are accused of breaching related to the correct year! But nevertheless that’s what they did.
The huge investment by City in the north stand etc. is not consistent with an organisation knowing it is doomed to massive penalties eg. relegation 2 or 3 years down the line.
An earlier poster (Tolmies hairdo if memory serves) suggests a deal may have been offered in the current proceedings. If it has, and City turned it down, then it is equivalent to their stance in the UEFA fiasco which was absolutely the right call.
Nor can I accept readily that these proceedings have been brought purely on the basis of a vendetta by the red tops. They must, for goodness sake, have taken advice before issuing the proceedings or if they haven’t, which as I say I think is highly unlikely, then more fool them. They may well have been advised their chances were iffy, but maybe, like City, they want the whole stinking mess sorted once and for all whatever the outcome.
I believe City are a highly competent outfit who will have taken the best possible advice, and are vigorously defending the allegations on the basis of that advice.
As in tax law, avoidance may be morally questionable, but not illegal, and by the same token a legitimate workaround to minimise the impact on their business of unfair PL rules could be acceptable whereas fraudulently cooking the books would not be.
The tragedy of all this for us fans is that it takes the shine off a breathtaking, groundbreaking past 15 years or so for which the club has received fuck all credit when they should have been praised for the transformation of the way the game is played and the positive impact worldwide on the Premier League “product.
In summary I think (hope) there are grounds for optimism, but it still doesn’t rid me of the nagging worry of why???
