PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Dribble]

Yes there is established sports law granting rights of appeal….as I said at the time. We are getting found guilty by the PL and the court of opinion and then ending up in the real
Courts

It's my understanding that PL clubs can't appeal to the law courts unless it's about the hearing or appeal process.

The facts surrounding the charge/charges can only be appealed to an independent panel setup by the Premier League.



https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...n-how-the-premier-league-came-to-its-decision

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

If that is true we should have taken the PL to court for besmirching our name.

I hope you are right though.

Charging someone with a breach of a regulation to which they are theoretically subject cannot amount to defamation.

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

Cunts in the media falling over themselves to conflate Everton and City are like someone comparing a driver who got flashed doing 35 in a 30, who pleaded guilty to the offence, and got a harsher sentence than expected with another driver accused of doing 70 in a 30 who not only denies the offence but has asked the prosecution to provide evidence of the alleged offence but none has been forthcoming.

There is literally no evidence in the public domain in relation to these 115 charges - and my very strong suspicion is that none whatsoever exists. Certainly none of the cunts conflating the two situations will have had sight of anything meaningful or we’d be fucking sure to know about it.

So yes, City will be punished more severely if the case against us is proven, but presently there appears to be no case to answer, because if there was it surely would have been determined some considerable time ago.

Any talk of City delaying proceedings (which was the prevailing narrative in the media yesterday) is a complete red herring, as is the notion that City need time to prepare to defend these 115 charges. I expect the legal professionals we have engaged could do so in under a week, if required.

If the PL had the evidence to support these charges then we would now unquestionably be at a wholly different stage of proceedings.

Time will tell of course, but I fully expect that the delay is simply because the PL have nothing of substance to back up these charges.

The alternative, namely that the club has committed grand-scale fraud over a sustained period, is not only absurd, but lacking any discernible supporting evidence.

This part of the equation is always conspicuously missed by these cunts in the media.

Funny that.

Also, if we have committed grand scale fraud over a sustained period, I’d imagine it’d warrant being looked at by something a bit more substantial than an ‘independent’ premier league tribunal!

 

[BerkshireBlue]

Because the allegations are so serious we won't be accepting any minor punishments. They are basically accusing us of fraud, and if they can prove it, which is a massive if, then people will be going to prison. I think the Premier League have realised that they have bitten off more than they can chew in their bid to get at City and by City not accepting any of the charges it puts the Premier League in a really tight spot.

Yep and if they find us guilty without any proof, which is what I think will happen, then City will be taking the case to commercial court trials. If the Premier League lose this case which they will thrn they'll be on the hook for an eye watering sum of money, billions I guess

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Also, if we have committed grand scale fraud over a sustained period, I’d imagine it’d warrant being looked at by something a bit more substantial than an ‘independent’ premier league tribunal!

The notion that City are fully as charged is completely absurd.

 

[goat boy]

Is it like this? Fix it for me if needed.

An analogy.

Jimmy went to a Spar on 3 occasions about 10 years and ago, and walked out of the shop, each time, with a bag of maltesers in his pocket.

Hes been charged with shoplifting. But, for some reason, hes been charged not once, for the alledged crime, not 3 times for each occasion, but 114 times for each individual malteser.

Now, Jimmy did no wrong and as it so happens he can show you the receipts of payment for all 3 trips. No crime has been commited and Spar quickly confirmed that they have absolutely no complaint. But, charge 115 is revealed to be non cooperation with his accuser. Is Jimmy's non cooperation at least understandable, if...

A) inspection of the 3rd receipt reveals he also purchased a couple of particularly nice bottles of single malt and believes his accuser will portray him, widely, as some kind of degenerate alcoholic

B) as he was feeling especially perky that day, on the 2nd visit, you may spot that he took down a couple of top shelf titles, and yunno what, that's a simple matter of privacy.

C) also demonstrably done nothing wrong at any point?

 

[kenbelly]

I yearn for the more innocent times when we all used to laugh at fergie and his dodgy transfer dealings with his son, life was simpler back then.

 

[bluemoon32]

Cunts in the media falling over themselves to conflate Everton and City are like someone comparing a driver who got flashed doing 35 in a 30, who pleaded guilty to the offence, and got a harsher sentence than expected with another driver accused of doing 70 in a 30 who not only denies the offence but has asked the prosecution to provide evidence of the alleged offence but none has been forthcoming.

There is literally no evidence in the public domain in relation to these 115 charges - and my very strong suspicion is that none whatsoever exists. Certainly none of the cunts conflating the two situations will have had sight of anything meaningful or we’d be fucking sure to know about it.

So yes, City will be punished more severely if the case against us is proven, but presently there appears to be no case to answer, because if there was it surely would have been determined some considerable time ago.

Any talk of City delaying proceedings (which was the prevailing narrative in the media yesterday) is a complete red herring, as is the notion that City need time to prepare to defend these 115 charges. I expect the legal professionals we have engaged could do so in under a week, if required.

If the PL had the evidence to support these charges then we would now unquestionably be at a wholly different stage of proceedings.

Time will tell of course, but I fully expect that the delay is simply because the PL have nothing of substance to back up these charges.

The alternative, namely that the club has committed grand-scale fraud over a sustained period, is not only absurd, but lacking any discernible supporting evidence.

This part of the equation is always conspicuously missed by these cunts in the media.

Funny that.

Which begs the question, why did the PL hand out these charges so willy nilly.
Surely they didn't think we'd just say "ok guv, it's a fair cop".
The PL's stance on all this makes no sense to me

 

[mexico1970]

Charging someone with a breach of a regulation to which they are theoretically subject cannot amount to defamation.

But what if as you say there are no basis for these charges that nobody has seen? I'm no lawyer but can you just make stuff up without any comeback?

 

[feedmpenzaandhewillscore]

Yep and if they find us guilty without any proof, which is what I think will happen, then City will be taking the case to commercial court trials. If the Premier League lose this case which they will thrn they'll be on the hook for an eye watering sum of money, billions I guess

They’ve opened up a can of worms pursuing Everton, going after City and what looks likely to be Chelsea as well. They potentially will be at war legally with three of its stake holders, it’s interesting that only Spurs and Arsenal out of the big six haven’t had any form of punishment for FFP from Uefa and the Premier League, if it works why are teams with big budgets and revenues coming a cropper with it?