PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Taylor’s Nod Down]

Oh I wondered where this plastic scouser had gone. Chief journalist for sly sports.

Great quote, you go ahead and watch with interest Everton. Watch how a proper club runs its business. And while you’re watching, be more interested in how it turns the money it’s spent into League Cups, FA Cups, Premier League Titles, Champions of Europe, the best Academy in Europe and a stadium that won’t be housing Championship football. Oh and watch how the fans have celebrated on the pitch because they won things, not because they stayed up. Set of whoppers.

 

[SamBlue]

Balance of probability sounds like our worst nightmare. If that's what the "Independent Panel's" decision comes down to regardless of evidence from either side, why don't they just toss a fucking coin ?

Tell me!

 

[BeerIsTheBest]

I think some people mistake City for Donald Trump.

We don’t counter-sue anyone taking us to court and we don’t ban journalists from our ground. (Roan aside)

We don’t drain the swamp, we just win there.

My understanding is that if you sue someone the defendant has the right to prove their assertions / defamatory remarks (excluding things like race etc) or whatever were valid by demanding evidence. If correct why would the club open itself up to the resultant circus before the Prem charges were resolved.
Perhaps the time for the club to go in hard will be after the Prem event!
Just a thought.

 

[RiversideBlue]

The ESL would be even more biased and loaded against us. It’s the only thing that would end me being a city fan if it happened

I felt the same at the time but the Premier league seems rotten to the core

 

[Ray bloody Purchase]

Tell me!

Will we ever be over Macho Grande?

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

My understanding is that if you sue someone the defendant has the right to prove their assertions / defamatory remarks (excluding things like race etc) or whatever were valid by demanding evidence. If correct why would the club open itself up to the resultant circus before the Prem charges were resolved.
Perhaps the time for the club to go in hard will be after the Prem event!
Just a thought.

Mostly in America, yeah.

 

[JPAMCR]

Decent article in the guardian by an Everton fan. Shame no journalists have raised these points. But then again it does criticise the media so not surprising.

Everton fan’s view: Premier League’s 10-point penalty simply doesn’t add up

Everton admitted guilt with plenty of mitigation but the process lacked transparency as media leaks undermined integrity

www.theguardian.com

 

[CatMan]

Tell me!

Surely it's balance of probability of the evidence provided, or why would you even have an adjudication panel? If City's evidence is irrefutable, and I hope it is, then we will be cleared.

 

[Dribble]

The one thing that's just occurred to me is Everton's points deduction being applied straight away.

If they applied a points deduction to City before an appeal, do we appear in the CL the following season before the appeal's been heard like with UEFA/CAS, or are we removed from the CL immediately?

It's now making total sense why the PL did what they did to Everton. They've set a precedent by their actions yesterday, which could deny us a CL spot irrespective of the ultimate conclusion of an appeals hearing.

If I was City, I'd be telling the PL if they try that immediate sanction stunt, we'll sue the fuck out of them for loss of earnings.

 

[StillBluessinceHydeRoad]

Do the Premier League regulations allow for an appeal?

Whether they do or do not, if they should reach an incorrect decision and fly in the face of the burden of proof principles, I imagine City’s lawyers will attempt to resort to the courts. I am not not qualified to say if they would succeed in going down that route. I’d anticipate them winning if the route was open. But I’m an accountant not a lawyer.

I believe that the right of appeal always exists in the case of a judgement which is perverse or which is based on a contentious application of the law. This shouldn't be controversial in City's case because the issue at stake seems to be one of concealment and one would expect the evidence to point fairly strongly in one direction or the other. As a poster has already pointed out CAS operates on the principle of the balance of probabilities and it concluded that too many conditions had to be met for concealment (ie owner investment disguised as sponsorship) to be a realistic possibility, and none were fulfilled. Unless the PL has some sensational new evidence of unquestionable provenance the matter of appeal should not arise.