PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Kinkys Left Foot said:
Allowed in a sense that is what their process allowed for, agreed.

Would I be correct in thinking that you have little faith in the PL's appointed arbitration panel with Mr Rosen as chair to come to the same decisions based upon the same facts as presented by both sides at CAS?

If so, how can such an outcome be seen as fair and equitable and is it likely such a decision would be seen as perverse and therefore what is or is there any recourse?
Click to expand...

When you consider the way that the Etisalaat deal has been clearly explained by some fairly learned City fans on here, including how it was old news that had already been dealt with at CAS anyway, and when you consider further that David Dein, who could hardly be described as 'on our side', dismissed it pretty much out of hand on the Piers Moron show last week, then you have to marvel that the PL could have come to the conclusion it merited a charge at all.
The fact that they did then charge us, irrespective of any non-cooperation on our part, ought to be of concern to any City fan. If you can't trust the PL to properly and fairly assess evidence, then how on Earth can you place any faith in their tribunal, including the KC (Rosen) they have placed in charge of it.
For all the talk on here of 'high bars', there is nothing to stop these ring-pieces delivering whatever verdict they see fit, and if they find us guilty, no-one but no-one will care two hoots about the process and lack of actual evidence, because the public has been conditioned into believing in our guilt. They tribunal might not be able to fudge its way into finding us guilty if our evidence is utterly overwhelming, but I have no faith in any marginal calls whatsoever. If they can possibly nobble us, then I have no doubt that they will. They've been commissioned for that very purpose.....
 
Exeter Blue I am here said:
If you can't trust the PL to properly and fairly assess evidence, then how on Earth can you place any faith in their tribunal, including the KC (Rosen) they have placed in charge of it.
Click to expand...
I thought it was up to the PL to gather the evidence, and up to the independent tribunal board to assess it's validity?
 
Exeter Blue I am here said:
When you consider the way that the Etisalaat deal has been clearly explained by some fairly learned City fans on here, including how it was old news that had already been dealt with at CAS anyway, and when you consider further that David Dein, who could hardly be described as 'on our side', dismissed it pretty much out of hand on the Piers Moron show last week, then you have to marvel that the PL could have come to the conclusion it merited a charge at all.
The fact that they did then charge us, irrespective of any non-cooperation on our part, ought to be of concern to any City fan. If you can't trust the PL to properly and fairly assess evidence, then how on Earth can you place any faith in their tribunal, including the KC (Rosen) they have placed in charge of it.
For all the talk on here of 'high bars', there is nothing to stop these ring-pieces delivering whatever verdict they see fit, and if they find us guilty, no-one but no-one will care two hoots about the process and lack of actual evidence, because the public has been conditioned into believing in our guilt. They tribunal might not be able to fudge its way into finding us guilty if our evidence is utterly overwhelming, but I have no faith in any marginal calls whatsoever. If they can possibly nobble us, then I have no doubt that they will. They've been commissioned for that very purpose.....
Click to expand...
I think it will all hang on the concept of ‘non- cooperation’.
They will establish nothing of any consequence and will fall back on the notion that they could have done us if it hadn’t been for that nebulous concept of non- cooperation.
It will cast doubt and leave plenty of room for insinuation and speculation.
We will be considered guilty in the public eye purely on the idea that non- cooperation means that we have something to hide.
They‘ve established this precedent with their twisted view of the CAS verdict.
 
Exeter Blue I am here said:
It is, but you still wouldn't put any old thing you could find in there, if palpable evidence already existed for its exclusion, would you? Or would you? Perhaps I'm wrong
Click to expand...
I guess it depends on why you've done it. Many believe the charges have been brought at the behest of the cartel/red clubs. What better way to get them off your back, than to charge us, then let an independent tribunal find there is no evidence to support the charges
 
Exeter Blue I am here said:
It is, but you still wouldn't put any old thing you could find in there, if palpable evidence already existed for its exclusion, would you? Or would you? Perhaps I'm wrong
Click to expand...

Maybe our co-operation hasn't been as complete as has been imagined, and some evidence has been kept back. Information and statements from sponsors and other externals, for example, which is the most compelling evidence, in fact. Evidence that the club feels that the PL didn't have the right to ask for, but which can be provided at the right time. Would explain the non-cooperation charge, why none of the underlying issues seem to have been cleared, and the number of alleged breaches. If the PL didn't get such compelling evidence they would have no option but to refer the alleged breaches to a disciplinary panel.

Just a guess.
 
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
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.