PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[manimanc]

I'm constantly amazed at the number of people who don't believe that the media indulges in systematic bias against certain clubs, when they absolutely do. I'm similarly amazed by those people who will acknowledge the possibility of political bias on the front pages of particular newspapers, but deny the same possibility when it comes to the back pages.
Just taking the Mail as an example, every article comes with a comments section. The paper's aim is to ensure that as many people as possible click on those articles, in order that they might maximise the advertising revenue central to their continued existence. It does this on the front pages by appealing to its largest readership demographic. Endless negative stories about lefties, teachers, lazy public servants, Meghan Markle, soft judges, asylum seekers, the cancel culture, 'militant' unions, remoaners, Gary Lineker etc etc are always the order of the day, because the Mail knows its foam flecked gammon army will hammer away with such fury that their keyboards will catch fire.
As to the back pages then, which two clubs have far and away the biggest fan bases in this country? And which club do you think is an oven ready enemy for both, having deprived them of hundreds of millions in prize money and trophies since 2011? Once you've joined the dots by answering those two questions, the penny should drop. City have been portrayed as football ruining, cheating, nouveau riche, sportswashing, plastic, no European pedigree, obscene spending (complete with squad cost comparisons, once famously when we weren't even one of the teams playing), human rights abusing, dodgy Arab owned, corrupt, 'dirty' oil money funded, success buying filth, non-stop for 15 years now, and our 'guilt' as regards the current PL investigation has long since been declared as fact.
Other papers, most notably the Guardian, have clear editorial policies when it comes to City and I defy you to find a single article from Miguel Delaney, Barney Ronay, Jonathan Liew etc that doesn't contain at least one of the phrases "state owned project", "oil funded" or "sportswashing". I've seen other journalists call our fans 'grubby apologists' and 'filthy rats', I've seen domestic broadcasters stuff their panels with rag pundits for our European games and listened to them call us mercenaries and wait until the half time interval to pan the camera around the crowd and sneer at us for having empty seats, and I've turned on the radio and heard us called "disgusting" and a "Frankenstein club". It's been relentless and no other club has ever had to put up with an onslaught of even remotely comparable degree. It doesn't mean that all journalists and broadcasters are out to get us, but compared to our immediate rivals we're a country mile ahead in the vilification stakes

That sir is completely brilliant.

Bravo blue, bravo.

 

[terraloon]

Confused by your point.

It is the breach that is time-barred, not the giving of evidence, isn't it?. So, if the panel doesn't find one of your three exceptions in the alleged breach, there can be no punishment for any breach if it occurred more than six years ago.

That's the situation, isn't it?

My point is they have to hear the evidence to establish the facts and rule on what’s in front of them

If the tribunal don’t find in the PL favour it doesn’t matter how long ago the offence was time barring doesn’t need to be considered.

iF however they find in favour of the PL it will almost certainly be because they feel that Man City failed to disclose correct information for whatever reason and if the PL argue that successfully then yes City can be punished

 

[denislawsbackheel]

Can we not ban this chav?

 

[Stoned Rose]

one thing that does concern me is this “balance of probability“ finding us guilty of something when there isn’t conclusive proof. A bit like i suddenly have a million pounds and a million pounds was stolen from my local bank a few weeks ago. There is nothing to link me with the robbery, I have no criminal record or criminal associates, but I won’t answer questions about how I came into possession of such a large amount of untraceable notes. Can I get banged up or have the money confiscated on balance of probability?

Balance of probabilities means there is a 51% chance you’ve committed the alleged act.

It’s a pretty low burden of proof.

 

[terraloon]

Can we not ban this chav?

On what basis ?

 

[Centurions]

Can we not ban this chav?

We can certainly block him, he's bored me enough now.

 

[Jam Tomorrow]

Balance of probabilities means there is a 51% chance you’ve committed the alleged act.

It’s a pretty low burden of proof.

This is basically my concern, i am guessing the chances the EPL can prove City committed fraud for a decade seems almost zero, in fact it is zero. However, they can throw that much shit that the panel may be swayed, so they find City guilty of serious charges because they probably are guilty. The subjective element.

 

[slbsn]

The point I was trying to make is that at both the two stages of UEFAs process the respective panels ruled they had reached the standard of proof required. So ok delete the smoking gun phrase and replace it with evidence to reach the level of comfortable satisfaction.

They , UEFA, were convinced the evidence of their view just as City probably were when they tried unsuccessfully to argue the burden of proof should be beyond reasonable doubt. CAS did say that the evidence needed to be cogent ( clear , logical and convincing)

Its a fact that this matter can’t land up on the books of CAS.

I don't know what the last bit means. I suspect City doubted their own standard of proof point - it was a try on because the law looks settled on that point.

The fact UEFA's panels (who even David Conn calls "semi independent") got themselves comfortable is neither here nor there. They must have constructed an argument that they could make inferences sufficient to prove the case based on a lack of cooperation. There is simply no other way 7 emails could do the job. But as they are an internal body, I think their call is not hugely relevant to this PL case. I trust the independence (to the extent one can) of the PL panel and there is far more information this time so it is a different case.

Anyway, apologies but life is too short to discuss these matters with a Chelsea fan. There is no logical reason to be on here for you but to wind people up. Which you have done!

 

[I'm Blue]

The point I was trying to make is that at both the two stages of UEFAs process the respective panels ruled they had reached the standard of proof required. So ok delete the smoking gun phrase and replace it with evidence to reach the level of comfortable satisfaction.

They , UEFA, were convinced the evidence of their view just as City probably were when they tried unsuccessfully to argue the burden of proof should be beyond reasonable doubt. CAS did say that the evidence needed to be cogent ( clear , logical and convincing)

Its a fact that this matter can’t land up on the books of CAS.

UEFA’s ‘evidence’ was based on doctored hacked emails.
So fuck what they think.
They never had a smoking gun, just a steaming pile of dog shit.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

City have been portrayed as football ruining, cheating, nouveau riche, sportswashing, plastic, no European pedigree, obscene spending (complete with squad cost comparisons, once famously when we weren't even one of the teams playing), human rights abusing, dodgy Arab owned, corrupt, 'dirty' oil money funded, success buying filth,

Aren't we?