PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

cheekybids said:
Sorry I didn’t communicate what I was meaning very well.

Has any media organisation explained that the emails used by Der Spiegel were spliced & out of context as clearly explained in the CAS judgement?
Click to expand...
Not that I know of.

That's why we City fans need to be educated so we can fight the fight for our club.
 
Can I just say your brains are a lot bigger then mine and also can I say we will beat this rap and also can I had fuck off you red shite for starting all this shit in the first place. And merry Xmas to all City fans and to all red shite I hope your next turd is a hedgehog.
 
Iassel said:
As already said, there were 2 points City took to commercial court.

1. The PL did not have jurisdiction to try these charges
2. Even if they did, they were too inherently biased to do so fairly.

Both points were struck down in commercial court.

The issue of privacy was separate - both the club and PL were acting under NDA but the Daily Mail fought (and won) that there was legitimate public interest in knowing this was going on in the background.

As to the viability of a guilty verdict - one of the only ways the club can challenge any guilt verdict is if the findings are legally unsound - ie the ‘irrefutable proof’ is presented to the tribunal, they acknowledge it but decide to ignore it without sound justification. In that case, the club could appeal to a new tribunal with 3 ‘fresh’ members and if the finding were the same, potentially a slim chance of being able to advance to a commercial court.

It’s for this reason the fears of a kangaroo court can be discarded - any guilty verdict that is not soundly supported and subsequently stuck down would leave the door open to a catastrophic lawsuit in City’s favour.

TLDR - net is any upheld finding of guilt will require something explosive be presented by the PL.
Click to expand...

I don’t want to repeat myself but I don’t see how the panel can rule on matters outside it jurisdiction or on which affect its jurisdiction but for which it cannot possibly investigate e.g involving third parties outside its jurisdiction for which it cannot gain the evidence it requires or on rules under its jurisdiction but if those rules where broken criminal activity would have had to have taken place and it cannot rule if that activity had taken place so cannot rule on its own rules.

No one has explained this to me yet.

Now I have heard it said that we have already challenged to panels jurisdiction and lost but I am not sure that covers what I am saying the below seems to say that we challenged the right for the public to know the bias and the right of the pane to rule on matters outside of the rules of the game section w of the Premier League rules that’s surely things related to on pitch matters not FFP see the bottom link to the Premier League rules


The articles I can see only focus on privacy and bias

Court ruling shows Premier League still investigating Manchester City over FFP | Manchester City | The Guardian

Manchester City strongly deny wrongdoing regarding financial fair play, which the Premier League started to investigate in March 2019
amp.theguardian.com amp.theguardian.com


 
WRicko said:
I don’t want to repeat myself but I don’t see how the panel can rule on matters outside it jurisdiction or on which affect its jurisdiction but for which it cannot possibly investigate e.g involving third parties outside its jurisdiction for which it cannot gain the evidence it requires or on rules under its jurisdiction but if those rules where broken criminal activity would have had to have taken place and it cannot rule if that activity had taken place so cannot rule on its own rules.

No one has explained this to me yet.

Now I have heard it said that we have already challenged to panels jurisdiction and lost but I am not sure that covers what I am saying the below seems to say that we challenged the right for the public to know the bias and the right of the pane to rule on matters outside of the rules of the game section w of the Premier League rules that’s surely things related to on pitch matters not FFP see the bottom link to the Premier League rules


The articles I can see only focus on privacy and bias

Court ruling shows Premier League still investigating Manchester City over FFP | Manchester City | The Guardian

Manchester City strongly deny wrongdoing regarding financial fair play, which the Premier League started to investigate in March 2019
amp.theguardian.com amp.theguardian.com


Click to expand...
There will be a whole raft of preliminary legal arguments of this nature many of them of some considerable force. The panel will be acutely aware of the need to get things right and not exceed their jurisdiction. Otherwise it could be very damaging to their future careers.

I would imagine Pannick will be spoilt for choice.

We've been playing them up until now. I genuinely believe we've been several steps ahead of our opponents the whole time and remain so.

It'll be a Turkey shoot.
 
Last edited:
Dribble said:
Not that I know of.

That's why we City fans need to be educated so we can fight the fight for our club.
Click to expand...

Not 1 …….. tells you everything about the agenda.

I wonder why not even 1 journalist swims against the stream. That’s what pisses me off about journalists that make out they have our ear that not even 1 of them had given a semblance of balance by stating the emails that that the whole revelation & charges were based on were falsified.
 
Last edited:
WRicko said:
So United should provide the bank statements of their noodle sponsors yeh right
Click to expand...

You guys are obsessed with bank statements. The PL rules now say this, as guidance to rules W15 and W16:

"The obligation above means that those bound by the Rules must not only answer questions, provide information and provide documents when requested to do so, but also that, for example (and without limitation), they must not delay at all in doing so, they must do so comprehensively, and they must do soon a co-operative and open basis, which includes volunteering relevant information and documents unknown to the Board, obtaining such information and documents from other parties when able to do so, and ensuring that the appropriate individuals are made available for questioning by the Board."

Now read what I said again in relation to that guidance.
 
WRicko said:
I don’t want to repeat myself but I don’t see how the panel can rule on matters outside it jurisdiction or on which affect its jurisdiction but for which it cannot possibly investigate e.g involving third parties outside its jurisdiction for which it cannot gain the evidence it requires or on rules under its jurisdiction but if those rules where broken criminal activity would have had to have taken place and it cannot rule if that activity had taken place so cannot rule on its own rules.

No one has explained this to me yet.

Now I have heard it said that we have already challenged to panels jurisdiction and lost but I am not sure that covers what I am saying the below seems to say that we challenged the right for the public to know the bias and the right of the pane to rule on matters outside of the rules of the game section w of the Premier League rules that’s surely things related to on pitch matters not FFP see the bottom link to the Premier League rules


The articles I can see only focus on privacy and bias

Court ruling shows Premier League still investigating Manchester City over FFP | Manchester City | The Guardian

Manchester City strongly deny wrongdoing regarding financial fair play, which the Premier League started to investigate in March 2019
amp.theguardian.com amp.theguardian.com


Click to expand...

It's pretty clear. This is a civil case. The panel doesn't have to conclude that there was any criminal conduct. They just have to decide whether or not, on the balance of probabilities, the club breached its contract with the PL to provide accounts that give a true and fair view of the club's activities. There is no doubt the panel has competence to do that.

Where are I agree with you, though, is in two areas: firstly, if there is a decision that upholds the PL's position on the balance of probabilities, then there is the inference of criminality, but this is dealt with by the need for higher levels of cogency to come to that conclusion and, even then, it would not be, in any way, a criminal conviction; secondly, to determine if any of the alleged breaches are time-barred, the panel will have to directly address the question of fraud or concealment. If they are not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that there was fraud or concealment, then the majority of the charges are time-barred. If they are satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that there was fraud or concealment regarding any of the alleged breaches, then those breaches are not time-barred even if older than 6 years. If I was on the panel, I would be pushing to not consider the time-barred aspect unless any of the alleged breaches are actually found in favour of the PL, effectively kicking that particular can of worms down the road, as it were. This would suit the club, I think, because they would much rather the panel finds against the PL on each charge, than have the majority of the charges time-barred again, I imagine.

I have no idea how the PL intends to prove fraud and concealment, though, which is why almost everyone (who knows what they are talking about) thinks they have over-reached, and once the club presents its third party evidence on each of the alleged breaches, in my opinion, after a great deal of expensive umming and arring, that will be that, especially given the profile of the case, the need for cogency and the risks to a large number of reputations on all sides of coming to an unfortunate conclusion.

I have presented a scenario to explain all this (the PL apparently over-reaching, the PL complaining about the club's lack of cooperation and bad faith, the club insisting it has cooperated etc..) which I think makes sense, but we will have to wait and see. The more I think about it, the more I am convinced the club's position is just fine.
 
halfcenturyup said:
You guys are obsessed with bank statements. The PL rules now say this, as guidance to rules W15 and W16:

"The obligation above means that those bound by the Rules must not only answer questions, provide information and provide documents when requested to do so, but also that, for example (and without limitation), they must not delay at all in doing so, they must do so comprehensively, and they must do soon a co-operative and open basis, which includes volunteering relevant information and documents unknown to the Board, obtaining such information and documents from other parties when able to do so, and ensuring that the appropriate individuals are made available for questioning by the Board."

Now read what I said again in relation to that guidance.
Click to expand...

The fact that the PL have updated the rules about 3rd party docs must show previously requests weren’t enforceable.
 
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.