None of the charges against Pinto related to City though of course the English press tried hard to link us to the case, especially the BBC, who appear to have now ignored the verdict, presumably because it doesn't suit their narrative.
The "facts" have always been the widely reported email leaks. Unless there is some other evidence that us and the club have been blindsided by (witnesses, whistle blowers etc which seems highly unlikely) then its all pretty much in the public domain.
I also wonder how much all that land in Beswick and Ancoats is worth these days. It was the deal of the century for Sheikh Mansour.
Went right over my head :)
That's a good point. You would assume the PL must have some evidence. But in the UEFA case we were sanctioned and later the CAS documents showed that UEFA had virtually no evidence at all. It seemed that UEFA's only strategy was to leak false statements to the media claiming they had a very strong case!
As I understand it, the very first thing the panel does after constitution is send an official complaint to the club with a list of the rules breached and, for each, a summary of the alleged "facts" and any supporting documentation. The club then has 14 days to either accept or deny the complaint. After a denial, the hearing process begins.
From It:Rui Pinto: Football Leaks founder handed four-year suspended sentence by Portugal court
Rui Pinto, the man behind the Football Leaks website which exposed deals involving top football clubs, agents and players, avoids prison.www.bbc.co.uk
I’m not sure that was the reason. My guess is that some of the material they wanted might have referenced our confidential business plan…very useful to our detractors.