PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Centurions]

Grade 1 Arsehole that fella

Who is making money off people who watch, read and retweet or link him.

Perhaps he isn't the daft one in the equation?

 

[LeonardoDaVnci]

Could City sue the gang of 8 for that letter begging cas to find us guilty ?

Could City have sued UEFA for the false ban and charges ?

Could City sue the premier league once cleared of these made up charges ?

If City had evidence that this was lead by certain clubs could City sue them ?

It's ok being cleared but we should than take action against our accusers

There are counter arguments to the intuitive urge for revenge or retribution.

For example, we are 5% shareholders of the PL so we would be in effect suing ourselves. As explained previously, the "Streisand Effect" is a like an unintended PR effect, or a PR own goal. This means you inadvertently escalate negativity about the club and perpetuate the anti City campaign against us in the MSM.

On field success is by far the most effective way to go, eg would you rather help to exclude the rags/dips from the UCL for 4 years or sleep better knowing we'd sued them say for £10M.

 

[BrianW]

I think City might have a case against some of the so-called journalists spouting their gall as if we are guilty on all points.

Normally, the word 'alleged' is used with great regularity. The reason for this is that if you call Joe Bloggs a murderer/rapist/paedo or whatever and he is subsequently acquitted he is within his rights to sue you. The word 'alleged' is barely being used in City's case.

 

[LeonardoDaVnci]

I think City might have a case against some of the so-called journalists spouting their gall as if we are guilty on all points.

Normally, the word 'alleged' is used with great regularity. The reason for this is that if you call Joe Bloggs a murderer/rapist/paedo or whatever and he is subsequently acquitted he is within his rights to sue you. The word 'alleged' is barely being used in City's case.

I believe the PL case is classed as "quasi-judicial" by legal professionals but to most of us it's a kangaroo court. Consequently there is no concept of "sub-juduce". City can be condemned, santicioned and slandered every day in the MSM with impunity.The PL/cartel were well aware this would happen and no doubt convinced them to go ahead with the flawed scatter gun charges.

 

[BrianW]

This means they cannot be guilty of contempt of court. But they are still, at least potentially, guilty of uttering libel and defamation, and City might have a case on those grounds. Whether City will bother is another question, but as a matter of principle, if you are a person of stature it is not good practice to allow people to libel you without challenge.

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

Could City sue the gang of 8 for that letter begging cas to find us guilty ?

Could City have sued UEFA for the false ban and charges ?

Could City sue the premier league once cleared of these made up charges ?

If City had evidence that this was lead by certain clubs could City sue them ?

It's ok being cleared but we should than take action against our accusers

Hopefully we will on the pitch. I suspect Pep will prime our players when we play those clubs.

I do wish he would come out and just tell those clubs, we will play with extra fire in our bellies against you lot.

 

[TedofChume]

Intended to come back and answer this at the weekend, but was busy with family stuff on Sunday, while Monday was a working day for me (and proved quite a tough one).

Yes, he meant EU law and specifically competition law. EU competition law states that a restriction on competition can be treated as allowable if it can be shown to give rise to benefits to consumers which outweigh any restrictions of competition.

IIRC, he managed to secure an agreement from the relevant directorate of the European Commission that the rules did give rise to such benefits and, as I recall, there was also a statement that sport in general should be treated as a special case as compared with other economic sectors. This is something sporting bodies often argue, but with wildly varying degrees of merit IMO.

But the thing is that the Commission is an enforcement body. While statements to the above effect were no doubt useful for Platini, the ultimate decision as to what does and doesn't breach EU law lies with the Court of Justice, so the Commission's consent was no guarantee UEFA would prevail if the matter were litigated. There were some challenges working their way through the system, but to be honest I didn't follow what happened to them.

In terms of someone litigating in an individual country whose FA is a member of UEFA to have UEFA regulations declared unlawful in that state, I think that would be of limited value. They'd simply exclude the litigant in question, or all clubs from that country if the FA were supporting the challenge.

It's hard to see UEFA seeing too much of a problem in a legal challenge in most non-EU states, whereas obviously the heft of the EU would give them serious problems of its courts made an adverse ruling. IMO, they'd think they could ride out an adverse ruling even in post-Brexit Britain, where currently the most lucrative domestic league is played,

I'm not sure that is correct.

Manchester City and UEFA are still a businessws in the European Economic Area trading with other EU businesses (ie other EU clubs) under rules set by UEFA. As such Eueopean Union laws apply and City would have every right to sue any other party in the European court.

The difficulty I think is that you have to sue in a domestic court first. I think the only way to do this would be to bring a defamation case against Rui Pinto and force him to reveal who paid him to besmirch Manchester City's reputation.

 

[KS55]

I'm not sure that is correct.

Manchester City and UEFA are still a businessws in the European Economic Area trading with other EU businesses (ie other EU clubs) under rules set by UEFA. As such Eueopean Union laws apply and City would have every right to sue any other party in the European court.

The difficulty I think is that you have to sue in a domestic court first. I think the only way to do this would be to bring a defamation case against Rui Costa and force him to reveal who paid him to besmirch Manchester City's reputation.

I suspect he’ll be in jail for a long time.

 

[nmc]

I'm not sure that is correct.

Manchester City and UEFA are still a businessws in the European Economic Area trading with other EU businesses (ie other EU clubs) under rules set by UEFA. As such Eueopean Union laws apply and City would have every right to sue any other party in the European court.

The difficulty I think is that you have to sue in a domestic court first. I think the only way to do this would be to bring a defamation case against Rui Costa and force him to reveal who paid him to besmirch Manchester City's reputation.

This Rui Costa?
Or maybe Rui Pinto ; )

 

[TedofChume]

This Rui Costa? View attachment 81364
Or maybe Rui Pinto ; )

Oops!!!