PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[blue ranger]

So did we challenge Rosen’s appointment in light of this club allegiance factor - which I must confess I’d never heard of - or because of our interactions with him in the intervening 3 months. Can’t say it fills me with glad tidings given our claims to have irrefutable evidence

Agree with you. If we have irrefutable evidence surely it doesn’t matter who it is.

 

[MCFC1993]

Surely the pl have are the information they need hence the charges

Depends on what information they used to issue the charges.

It certainly wasn't any accounting information we submitted as that would have been audited and the charges would have come about a long time ago.

If they've done it from the leaked information then they may well need a lot of information from us and we may not have to provide it.

 

[KS55]

But if we are as innocent as we say we are and have the evidence to prove it then why worry who judges the case?

Read CAS1 and their coruscating critique of M. Leterme.

 

[MCFC1993]

Questioning the KC appointed isn't really the big story here, it just makes for a nice clickbait title. I imagine most KC's specialising in sport are fans of a football team.

The challenging of the application of the rules does seem very important however.

 

[AlgarveBlu]

My memory may be failing me here but I am sure I read on this thread some time ago that the final decision couldn't be appealed to the High Court? Times article concludes it can do and says City are prepared to go to the Supreme court

 

[halfcenturyup]

Seems like Stefan is saying the Premier League are trying to use new rules to request information retrospectively. He admits he's just guessing but I can understand why the club is pushing back on that.

Click see more to see his full tweet.


Hoping this pans out as we can't charge City because they aren't obliged to hand over information and we can all move on.

The real question is who is leaking this information, the club or the PL? I can't imagine it's either, really. Or someone from inside the process, but not the PL directly. Sound familiar?

If it's coming from the PL directly or indirectly, that's another process violation right there. Another rookie mistake when they have been so careful to be so quiet for so long. And a sign of weakness

 

[give it to gordon]

Depends on what information they used to issue the charges.

It certainly wasn't any accounting information we submitted as that would have been audited and the charges would have come about a long time ago.

If they've done it from the leaked information then they may well need a lot of information from us and we may not have to provide it.

But to charge someone you must be confident you have enough information. I thought you would be 100% sure you have evidence you need

 

[manimanc]

So read the article and that's what it sounds like, no issue with that challenge really. The one about him being an Arsenal fan seems a bit much, akin to what we've posted on here. You'd hope regardless they would be impartial.

I'd say he would have been impartial about 6 weeks ago when Arsenal won the league in March.
Now I reckon he'll take the hearing wearing full Arsenal kit plus boots and shinpads and want to fuck us over.

 

[FantasyIreland]

I'd say he would have been impartial about 6 weeks ago when Arsenal won the league in March.
Now I reckon he'll take the hearing wearing full Arsenal kit plus boots and shinpads and want to fuck us over.

While that would be his aim,he'll bottle it at the last minute.

 

[MCFC1993]

But to charge someone you must be confident you have enough information. I thought you would be 100% sure you have evidence you need

You would like to think so, especially from the Premier League's point of view, but I think the charges are a bit like being arrested. You would like to think that the police making the arrest have all the evidence but not all arrests hold up in front of a jury.