PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

SilverFox2 said:
Sounds OK to me.

We fight pedantic 115 fire with extruded pedantic fire.
In the meantime we shrug off perpetual media bias and get on with winning trophies. At the same time we watch our enemies spend to compete but dangerously close to breaking not only FFP but also Mr Macawbers advice.
Click to expand...
The Glazers overspending by sixpence = misery. Love it.
 
WRicko said:
I don’t want to repeat myself but I don’t see how the panel can rule on matters outside it jurisdiction or on which affect its jurisdiction but for which it cannot possibly investigate e.g involving third parties outside its jurisdiction for which it cannot gain the evidence it requires or on rules under its jurisdiction but if those rules where broken criminal activity would have had to have taken place and it cannot rule if that activity had taken place so cannot rule on its own rules.

No one has explained this to me yet.

Now I have heard it said that we have already challenged to panels jurisdiction and lost but I am not sure that covers what I am saying the below seems to say that we challenged the right for the public to know the bias and the right of the pane to rule on matters outside of the rules of the game section w of the Premier League rules that’s surely things related to on pitch matters not FFP see the bottom link to the Premier League rules


The articles I can see only focus on privacy and bias

amp.theguardian.com

Court ruling shows Premier League still investigating Manchester City over FFP

Manchester City strongly deny wrongdoing regarding financial fair play, which the Premier League started to investigate in March 2019
amp.theguardian.com amp.theguardian.com


Click to expand...
I fully understand your specific point, & you're correct.

Essentially, what jurisdiction does UEFA or the PL have outside of their organisations to compel ADUG, Etisalat or Jaber Mohammed to open their books & provide bank statements to football's governing bodies?

At this very juncture, UEFA & the PL's cases should fall on their arse, because their charges become mere suppositions based on a sentence in a stolen email, which City claim was spliced together to give an egregious interpretation of the facts.

This is why City contend the emails in isolation, were taken out of context.
 
SilverFox2 said:
Sounds OK to me.

We fight pedantic 115 fire with extruded pedantic fire.
In the meantime we shrug off perpetual media bias and get on with winning trophies. At the same time we watch our enemies spend to compete but dangerously close to breaking not only FFP but also Mr Macawbers advice.
Click to expand...
 
Centurions said:
They weren't 'falsified' though were they? Two were combined to make it sound worse than it was but I don't think the wording was altered?

Regardless, it's all political bollocks and I'm still not even faintly stressed.
Click to expand...
At least one of the email copies was fabricated by merging two together. This was stated in CAS but not reported by any mainstream media as far as I know. That says everything.
 
WRicko said:
Seems to me that the Premier League depending on there mood could make very unreasonable demands should they choose to do for example demand that we have the head of Nissan give evidence in person and provide bank statement and then choose to or not to for example with regards to United and there noodle partner the whole thing stinks. We cannot make unrelated third party sponsors give evidence etc we are not court police force etc they have no reason to do so other than to help someone they sponsors out and any tangential positive for their marketing.
Click to expand...

Bank statements again. You guys.

They can't make unreasonable demands but I suppose they could ask for some confirmation from third parties that what the club says is true. After all, in City's case, the PL knows we provided such information at CAS, so withholding it this time could be seen as non-cooperation. The club ignoring such requests because they weren't provided for in the rules (historically) and preferring to give third party evidence after we have been charged is my guess at what has happened, and why the club has been charged with non-cooperation and acting in bad faith.
 
halfcenturyup said:
"The obligation above means that those bound by the Rules must not only answer questions, provide information and provide documents when requested to do so, but also that, for example (and without limitation), they must not delay at all in doing so, they must do so comprehensively, and they must do soon a co-operative and open basis, which includes volunteering relevant information and documents unknown to the Board, obtaining such information and documents from other parties when able to do so, and ensuring that the appropriate individuals are made available for questioning by the Board."

Now read what I said again in relation to that guidance.
Click to expand...

if this is what it says then to me it reads like

1) try to get some information from a 3rd party but if you fail to do so then fine.
2) make sure any MCFC staff are available for questioning.

I doubt we fail on any of those points.
 
Centurions said:
They weren't 'falsified' though were they? Two were combined to make it sound worse than it was but I don't think the wording was altered?

Regardless, it's all political bollocks and I'm still not even faintly stressed.
Click to expand...

This is what CAS said, so, in the spirit of Christmas, I guess you were both right.

Page4 CAS.jpg
 
BerkshireBlue said:
if this is what it says then to me it reads like

1) try to get some information from a 3rd party but if you fail to do so then fine.
2) make sure any MCFC staff are available for questioning.

I doubt we fail on any of those points.
Click to expand...

Correct, except in our case, the PL knows we have such third party evidence from the CAS hearing, so, if the club decided not to hand it over to the investigation together with similar evidence for the years also covered by the PL but, rather, wait until there is an "independent" tribunal, then they could say that was non-cooperation. Perfectly understandable approach to me but it could jangle a few PL chains .....
 
Centurions said:
They weren't 'falsified' though were they? Two were combined to make it sound worse than it was but I don't think the wording was altered?

Regardless, it's all political bollocks and I'm still not even faintly stressed.
Click to expand...
Running two together when in reality they were years apart is falsification. The words need not be changed for falsification.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Bank statements again. You guys.

They can't make unreasonable demands but I suppose they could ask for some confirmation from third parties that what the club says is true. After all, in City's case, the PL knows we provided such information at CAS, so withholding it this time could be seen as non-cooperation. The club ignoring such requests because they weren't provided for in the rules (historically) and preferring to give third party evidence after we have been charged is my guess at what has happened, and why the club has been charged with non-cooperation and acting in bad faith.
Click to expand...
If third parties provided information subject to a provision that it was strictly for the purpose of Case 1, City could not hand it over in Case2. I dont expect this was the case, but it is an important point for the future. Certainly if I were a third party handing over info I would make sure it was otherwise protected.
 
KS55 said:
Running two together when in reality they were years apart is falsification. The words need not be changed for falsification.
Click to expand...
Ordinarily you'd highlight the pertinent points to support your case, but also provide the full exchanges as an appendix so they can be forensically scrutinised.

It's not stated that UEFA did this, but if they didn't, it's extremely amateurish of them. If I were defending, the first thing I'd highlight is why hasn't the full exchange been provided, but only selected sections spliced together, which in isolation paint a wholly different picture to the reality of the situation?
 
interesting reading the last few pages. If it’s anything to go by, the lawyers will be fighting over interpretation and timing of events while trying to meet the very high level based on balance and probabilities the club did not provide a true and fair picture of its accounts. Based on here, it looks an impossible task.

The only bad actor here is the Premier league which is not acting in good faith.

I honestly hope we drag this out for another 10 seasons. Every dirty accusation has been thrown at us and we are building resilience while winning. Everyone has us down as cheats so it won’t matter if the case was heard tomorrow and we got a full pardon. Football fans don’t care, all they will say is cheats.

City fans are a resilient bunch anyway. Another episode of character building. Going up to a rags house today for lunch. Think I will put on my new city gear to initiate a nice sensible discussion on all things 115 -:)

He isn’t the worse but still can’t accept the new football pyramid. It is Christmas and all so maybe I will go easy on him? Nah -:)

Topics to discuss:

Glazers
Onana
Slabby
Sancho
Glazers
Rat
Rato
Lazy Rashy
GPC & Horse spunk


It’s great being a blue.
 
wolviedinho said:
The only bad actor here is the Premier league which is not acting in good faith.
Click to expand...

This is what has been irritating me from day 1. This whole saga began with illegally obtained emails. UEFA's starting position was that the emails were genuine and showed we had breached their rules. Flimsy intelligence to start off with, but it could be argued that UEFA had no option but to investigate. From there, instead of having to build a case, it became incumbent on us to prove our "innocence". Something of an inversion of justice, but okay, at an independent panel we'll do just that.

So we then prove that those emails were taken out of context and in the case of "one" of those emails, also manipulated. For me, that should have been an end to the matter other than investigating why and who by those emails were manipulated.

Instead, and knowing all that, the PL have used the same source material to embark on a fishing exercise requiring production of more and more commercially sensitive information covering longer and longer periods. To me, that smacks of an investigation conducted in very bad faith indeed.
 
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