PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Not sure I agree with that.
That’s fine, it’s all a game of opinions at the end of the day.

Ultimately though, the club say they have ‘irrefutable evidence’ that the charges are bollocks. To see this evidence is to kill the case stone dead, there is that little ambiguity.

That then only leaves two scenarios.

1. The club have this evidence, have decided under legal advice to not engage with the investigation (very likely to avoid falling foul of a fishing expedition) and accept non-compliance charges that will result in a hefty fine

2. The club have provided all of this evidence, the PL and some of the UKs top legal minds, people who pick and choose their cases, have seen this evidence and still plowed ahead in a case of such corporate negligence it makes Gerald Rayner look a visionary, and thrown in non-compliance charges for a laugh also.

My point was a simple one - a poster said if City are found not guilty of all charges they should ‘sue everyone’, but unless it’s a case of scenario 2 above, it’s simply not possible, and if it’s scenario 2 at the end of the day, the PL executives and KC’s who saw ‘irrefutable evidence’ and pushed on would have being sued way down their list of concerns.

Not sure I agree with this, either.
Also fine, but whilst it would be absolutely hilarious if all the PL have is the UEFA case that they want to retry, it stretches extremely thin the concept of plausibility that some of the UKs top KCs would be willing to put their reputations and their chambers’ reputations on the line to try that case again, especially with the weightiest allegations having already been found unsubstantiated by CAS. These guys earn millions of pounds a year and pick and choose their cases, they’re not taking this case for money or because they’re secretly Arsenal/Liverpool/United fans.

In that scenario, any KC worth their salt would be advising the club to ‘take a pinch’ if it were offered as some of the Walter Mittys would have you believe the PL have been desperate for. It’s not just SM who can make decisions anymore either, there are important shareholders with a lot of money on the line, it would be negligence of the highest order to refuse a settlement if offered no matter how confident you are.

If in 18 months time the ruling comes out and it turns out the PL had nothing more than the UEFA case, ran with it anywhere and got torn apart at the tribunal, I’ll be on here celebrating with you, trying to avoid a double hernia from laughing so hard, but for the reasons above, I just don’t see any plausible scenario that the PL and KCs would be that reckless, even with the pressure other clubs and an incoming independent regulator no doubt put them under.
 
That’s fine, it’s all a game of opinions at the end of the day.

Ultimately though, the club say they have ‘irrefutable evidence’ that the charges are bollocks. To see this evidence is to kill the case stone dead, there is that little ambiguity.

That then only leaves two scenarios.

1. The club have this evidence, have decided under legal advice to not engage with the investigation (very likely to avoid falling foul of a fishing expedition) and accept non-compliance charges that will result in a hefty fine

2. The club have provided all of this evidence, the PL and some of the UKs top legal minds, people who pick and choose their cases, have seen this evidence and still plowed ahead in a case of such corporate negligence it makes Gerald Rayner look a visionary, and thrown in non-compliance charges for a laugh also.

My point was a simple one - a poster said if City are found not guilty of all charges they should ‘sue everyone’, but unless it’s a case of scenario 2 above, it’s simply not possible, and if it’s scenario 2 at the end of the day, the PL executives and KC’s who saw ‘irrefutable evidence’ and pushed on would have being sued way down their list of concerns.


Also fine, but whilst it would be absolutely hilarious if all the PL have is the UEFA case that they want to retry, it stretches extremely thin the concept of plausibility that some of the UKs top KCs would be willing to put their reputations and their chambers’ reputations on the line to try that case again, especially with the weightiest allegations having already been found unsubstantiated by CAS. These guys earn millions of pounds a year and pick and choose their cases, they’re not taking this case for money or because they’re secretly Arsenal/Liverpool/United fans.

In that scenario, any KC worth their salt would be advising the club to ‘take a pinch’ if it were offered as some of the Walter Mittys would have you believe the PL have been desperate for. It’s not just SM who can make decisions anymore either, there are important shareholders with a lot of money on the line, it would be negligence of the highest order to refuse a settlement if offered no matter how confident you are.

If in 18 months time the ruling comes out and it turns out the PL had nothing more than the UEFA case, ran with it anywhere and got torn apart at the tribunal, I’ll be on here celebrating with you, trying to avoid a double hernia from laughing so hard, but for the reasons above, I just don’t see any plausible scenario that the PL and KCs would be that reckless, even with the pressure other clubs and an incoming independent regulator no doubt put them under.
RATNER
 
What’s the blocking newspapers all about? First time hearing this.

Genuinely don’t know if the time set for hearing is ideal for the club. Makes sense with gravity of allegations and years looked at spanning involved.

Does what he is saying here carry weight? Or is just spouting drivel??


I believe we went to court to try and keep the charges out of the media and for everything to take place behind closed doors, only to be revealed after the case had been concluded.

Seems fair enough to me, just imagine a situation where were were charged with 115 breaches and it was just thrown out to the media without them having any understanding of the charges. Opposition fans, the media and red tops would have us guilty before the case had ever been heard :)
 
So please pray tell (and indulge me).....

If I was issued a ticket for travelling at 28 miles per hour in a 20 mph zone, would or should it stand? Given that the 20 mph zone was a 30 mph zone last week when the alleged offence occurred I would say there was not a leg for them to stand on and I'd anticipate the majority on here would agree.

Well this looks to me like what the Premier League are doing to City, changing the rules retrospectively and then charging City for historic breaches against current rules, Makes no sense, though top marks to them for trying....

BTW the scenario above was just that, a scenario.

This what makes me think they don't stand a chance of making it stick, not only that but the first questions to be asked should be "when did you first know about this?" and "why has it taken so long for you to make these accusations?"
That's exactly what uefa did when they charged us , they changed the rules After we submitted our accounts hence Khaldoon referring to 'taking a pinch' something we won't do again
 
If this timeline Is true, if the Premier League have a case and if City have “irrefutable evidence of our innocence” why is it taking so long to have a hearing ?

The amount of lawyers, barristers, the acting chair of the proceedings all need to agree a date and many of them will be booked up already with other cases outside of football.

There will be a shit load of paper evidence, then witness statements, expert opinion evidence. Everton case for just a couple of years had tens of thousands of pages for their 'trial.'
 

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.