PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[slbsn]

So here is a question. Conventional wisdom is that, with 115 alleged breaches, it will take a long time to litigate this because each breach will have to be assessed on its own.

But is that correct? The DS emails only referred to one year's Etihad sponsorship, for example. So if we disprove the breach for that year, surely all the other alleged Etihad breaches in each of the other years fall away? In other words, the club can't be asked to defend breaches for which there is no evidence?

So in that case, isn't it really just about disproving four or five issues in individual years? And the whole process may not take as long we think?

Probably missing something important. Any help?

Its total nonsense. But it will take a long time because the matters are serious and complex. Also we don't need to disprove anything. The PL have to prove their case on a balance of probabilities with "cogent" evidence.

 

[HelloCity]

Its total nonsense. But it will take a long time because the matters are serious and complex. Also we don't need to disprove anything. The PL have to prove their case on a balance of probabilities with "cogent" evidence.

Does their case now hinge on the evidence they may have or can they obtain more? What if they’re asking for documents which don’t exist?

 

[slbsn]

Does their case now hinge on the evidence they may have or can they obtain more? What if they’re asking for documents which don’t exist?

Nobody can produce docs that don't exist but the PL will have far more documents than the UEFA 6/7 emails. PL has wide disclosure rights.

 

[M12Blue]

Backtracking? Based on what? And as regards Khaldoon, innocent or guilty, I would have expected nothing else other than bullish confidence

IF dragged out I reckon PL will be the ones responsible not City. If we are to trust the club, and I do, a quick resolution with City cleared will be a poorer look for PL than PL dragging it out and declaring they did their best. Just my view mate

 

[HelloCity]

Nobody can produce docs that don't exist but the PL will have far more documents than the UEFA 6/7 emails. PL has wide disclosure rights.

Seems like we feel we’ve provided a lot of documents to prove our case. If guilty would we really provide information which would incriminate ourselves?

I’ve wondered if we’ve provided documents, the PL asked for more, we said they don’t exist, and therefore they’ve charged us for not ‘proving’ things completely.

Obviously, you’d know better than me if that could be the case and also one of the reasons we may have been charged for non co-operation also.

 

[domalino]

Nobody can produce docs that don't exist but the PL will have far more documents than the UEFA 6/7 emails. PL has wide disclosure rights.

I’m a KFA but it feels like the argument over the change of disclosure rules and which standard City have to submit to could be the cornerstone of the whole case?

 

[Keith Moon]

You're right. If they can't land any punches re the sponsorship, the Mancini contract and the Fordham stuff then a lot of the other charges (bar maybe the non-cooperation ones) fail. Simple as that.

the Mancini contract is time-barred.

 

[slbsn]

I’m a KFA but it feels like the argument over the change of disclosure rules and which standard City have to submit to could be the cornerstone of the whole case?

It is more nonsense. The disclosure rules haven't materially changed. In any event the rules they need to adhere to could only have been those in the relevant year. Moreover, the guidance is irrelevant as it expressly does not form part of the rules. I very much doubt there is any real argument about the disclosure rules. But arguments over the extent of disclosure is routine in any such case.

 

[Dukefan9]

I need a neutral investigative journalist to dig into why the charges came like they did and make it into a docuseries somewhere cause there certainly seems to be a story there somewhere

 

[Jazzman]

Also we don't need to disprove anything. The PL have to prove their case on a balance of probabilities with "cogent" evidence.

And that is IMHO the core most people forget. It is so ironic that those who take the moral high ground towards our owner and Abu Dhabi mostly do not adhere to a cornerstone of the "superiour" western society, namely that you are innocent until proven guilty. Instead these morons are happy to find us "guilty" before anyone has proven anything, and off course also claim we are guilty after the "court" has decided there is no evidence to support the claims. Idiots the lot.