PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[oakiecokie]

holy fuck

He knows about as much as fuck also. ;)

 

[MrsBanks]

As an avid reader of the last 1765 pages, I often imagine the PL lawyers following the thread with similar diligence. Sometimes making notes and sometimes laughing hysterically.

 

[oakiecokie]

As an avid reader of the last 1765 pages, I often imagine the PL lawyers following the thread with similar diligence. Sometimes making notes and sometimes laughing hysterically.

Difference being that the PL Lawyers are laughing all right ... all the way to the bank.

 

[Chris in London]

The breaches for refusing to co-operate are for the period from 2018 onwards. Is that right?

YES

So I suppose that means the club hasn't, in the view of the PL, provided all the documents necessary to eliminate the possibility of wrongdoing on certain issues since the investigation began.


NO. THE NON COOPERATION CHARGES WILL IMHO RELATE TO OUR INITIAL REFUSAL TO PROVIDE THE DOCUMENTS REQUESTED BY THE PL. THERE WAS THEN A SERIES OF COMPLSINTS/ARBITRATIONS/COURT CASES THAT RESULTED IN THE FINAL DECISION THAT WE HAD TO PROVIDE THE DOCUMENTS SOUGHT. SO, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, WE DID.

In that case, and assuming we haven't co-operated with the issues listed in the "charges", presumably the only evidence they have is the discussions in the DS emails.

WE HAVE COOPERATED. BELATEDLY. NOT EARLY ENOUGH TO AVOID A CHARGE OF NON COOPERATION, BUT ENOUGH FOR THE PL TO CONDUCT THEIR INVESTIGATION. IF TOLMIES HAIRDOO IS CORRECT, AND HE USUALLY IS, WE HAVE GIVEN THE PL ENOUGH DOCUMENTATION TO FILL A PORTAKABIN. SO THE NON COOPERATION CHARGE OF WHICH WE ARE IMO GUILTY IS NOT “YOU DIDN’T GIVE US THE DOCUMENTS AT ALL”, IT IS “YOU DIDN‘T GIVE US THE DOCUMENTS WE ASKED FOR WHEN WE ASKED FOR THEM.”

So then, my question. If the only evidence they have is the DS emails, which iirc only relates to one particular year in each case, surely Ric is right that the PL have included all the other years in the list of breaches purely because we haven't provided them with the information to show that the alleged malfeasance didn't happen in the first place, and didn't recur in any other years.

NO. SEE ABOVE.

Or put it another way, they only have "evidence" of a breach for each issue for a single year, the breaches for other years are merely imputed from our reluctance to co-operate. Isn't that incredibly weak from the PL?

I have replied by including my answers in capitals in the post above

The use of capitals is purely for ease of identification of my comments. im not shouting at you.

Honestly.

 

[halfcenturyup]

WE HAVE COOPERATED. BELATEDLY. NOT EARLY ENOUGH TO AVOID A CHARGE OF NON COOPERATION, BUT ENOUGH FOR THE PL TO CONDUCT THEIR INVESTIGATION. IF TOLMIES HAIRDOO IS CORRECT, AND HE USUALLY IS, WE HAVE GIVEN THE PL ENOUGH DOCUMENTATION TO FILL A PORTAKABIN. SO THE NON COOPERATION CHARGE OF WHICH WE ARE IMO GUILTY IS NOT “YOU DIDN’T GIVE US THE DOCUMENTS AT ALL”, IT IS “YOU DIDN‘T GIVE US THE DOCUMENTS WE ASKED FOR WHEN WE ASKED FOR THEM.”


NO. SEE ABOVE.


I have replied by including my answers in capitals in the post above

The use of capitals is purely for ease of identification of my comments. im not shouting at you.

Honestly.

:) I wouldn't blame you.

Honestly.

 

[halfcenturyup]

WE HAVE COOPERATED. BELATEDLY. NOT EARLY ENOUGH TO AVOID A CHARGE OF NON COOPERATION, BUT ENOUGH FOR THE PL TO CONDUCT THEIR INVESTIGATION. IF TOLMIES HAIRDOO IS CORRECT, AND HE USUALLY IS, WE HAVE GIVEN THE PL ENOUGH DOCUMENTATION TO FILL A PORTAKABIN. SO THE NON COOPERATION CHARGE OF WHICH WE ARE IMO GUILTY IS NOT “YOU DIDN’T GIVE US THE DOCUMENTS AT ALL”, IT IS “YOU DIDN‘T GIVE US THE DOCUMENTS WE ASKED FOR WHEN WE ASKED FOR THEM.”


NO. SEE ABOVE.


I have replied by including my answers in capitals in the post above

The use of capitals is purely for ease of identification of my comments. im not shouting at you.

Honestly.

A quick follow-up then I will shut up about this as well. Honestly.

Just providing the information requested doesn't mean we have been co-operating in good faith, does it? If the club has been withholding evidence from the investigation that would exonerate the club from wrong-doing, but didn't provide it because the PL didn't request it, or don't have the authority to request it, wouldn't that be classified as non-compliance "in good faith"?

Thinking about accounting analysis from Etihad and ADUG that the PL knows we have because it was presented at CAS, for example.

 

[cheekybids]

A quick follow-up then I will shut up about this as well. Honestly.

Just providing the information requested doesn't mean we have been co-operating in good faith, does it? If the club has been withholding evidence from the investigation that would exonerate the club from wrong-doing, but didn't provide it because the PL didn't request it, or don't have the authority to request it, wouldn't that be classified as non-compliance "in good faith"?

Thinking about accounting analysis from Etihad and ADUG that the PL knows we have because it was presented at CAS, for example.

I like you keep thinking is there any way the non cooperation can be defended?

I know we don’t know what or how they asked for evidence & we don’t know City’s response was.

I felt we had legitimate concerns with UEFA & evidence supported the concerns. Obviously not in eyes of the panel.

 

[wolviedinho]

It seems to be accepted that one potential reason for these charges is because of pressure from certain clubs being placed on the PL. It has also been said that the PL would not have listed all these charges flippantly (if that’s the right term to use here).

However, let’s just say that the first sentence is true and that there isn’t substantial evidence to secure a verdict of the most serious charges and that instead these charges are simply to set a nouse around the clubs neck for several years.

With that in mind these are the potential impacts that these charges may be designed to bring:

- It means that people doubt our success as being real. Bad PR etc.
- It could put potential transfer targets off from joining the club.
- It could put potential sponsors off from partnering with the club.
- It may even put some fans off from supporting the club.

These points all benefit our rivals in some degree or form.

If I’m the PL and an organisation which has openly said it doesn’t want one club dominating, that Utd being unsuccessful is bad for the division and that a new name should be on the trophy every few years then the desired impact of these charges could be as follows:

- The manager responsible for City’s dominance chooses to walk away fed up of the constant stories and fights (he won’t though).
- With some top players not joining due to the charges we don’t reach our true potential and become less dominant.
- Our opposition grows in stature and becomes more successful due to them being able to sign players we could not.

From what I can see, there are major benefits to having these charges around City’s neck for both our rivals & the PL regardless of whether they have enough evidence or not.

So basically the premier league’s case is a red herring and doomed to fail but also succeed by allowing our rivals to catchup thus slowing down our dominance ?

I have read a lot of theories as to why the premier have acted so aggressively towards city and I think you maybe onto something here. It’s an absurd notion but is it beyond the realms of possibilities?

The seriousness and the enormity of the charges laid at city leave you too think they either have us by the balls or they actual have little or no proof apart from hacked emails and non compliance. Can’t charge us but can damage the brand and slow down our growth. Free hit essentially. Uefa did it so why can’t the league?

It’s all a con.

 

[PhillyBasedBlue]

Many thanks for the info. It's been mentioned, before the independent panel of just three people have a really onerous responsibility when they rule on these charges. How the panel do this could also be significant, eg look at a similar charge for all relevant years or just cover all separate charges chronologically. The documentation of the hearing/ruling could run to 1000s of pages. The total legal bill will be huge, I'd reckon around 10million, truly insane amount, approx 10% of a Grealish.

Or 16.6 Haalands.

 

[halfcenturyup]

I like you keep thinking is there any way the non cooperation can be defended?

I know we don’t know what or how they asked for evidence & we don’t know City’s response was.

I felt we had legitimate concerns with UEFA & evidence supported the concerns. Obviously not in eyes of the panel.

Oh, I don't think we can defend it. I think we are fucked on non-cooperation. I am just trying to get my head around what this list of breaches actually means.

And, as you can probably tell, I still don't see things the way others do.

I am very probably wrong but I owe it to myself to try to get it straight in my own mind.