A bit different. I think UEFA - at least partly - arrived at their decision because we stopped co-operating when the leaks started appearing in the press. We subsequently co-operated fully with CAS and will do so this time with the independent panel.Not sure anyone has said it has to be secret?
My impression was Masters simply couldn't say because he had forgotten what the date was.
However, it would be best if the date was kept secret as the media will ramp up the pressure and try and influence the outcome.
I'm not convinced of the impartiality of this hearing. The PL will be seen as fools if we're exonerated and I think they'll be keen to at least have some of the charges stick.
I mean UEFA's hearing was supposed to be impartial yet they found us guilty with no evidence of any wrong doing.
For what its worth, this is my take on this.
We, as a club have some of the smartest business people in the world looking after our finances. Every business that I have ever worked for sales as close to the wind as possible while ensuring they comply with the rules and regulations.
We then have the Premier League, who are basically a sporting organisation with a huge turnover. I highly doubt that they have the same level of financial understanding and skills as our guys do.
I think it all boils down to interpretation of the rules, the PL may argue that the way we have applied the rules is not in line with their expectations, however, if we have acted according to UK law and everything can be accounted for and shown on the books then we will be fine.
If the independent panel is indeed experts in their field you would have to assume they are fully aware of legal accounting processes.
My main point was we aren't being tried in accordance with UK Law, because a business owner investing as much of his own money as he likes into his business is perfectly legal.Because the rules of the premier league say they can't and we have agreed to abide by the rules. Specific financial rules aren't unique to the premier league or even football, many other sports have salary caps for example.
I agree with your wider point in that I feel City should have challenged the concept of FFP at it's inception but we didn't so now we have to abide by it.
Or the Dippers fans throwing missiles at our solicitors’ cars when they arrive at the hearing.None whatsoever but I think it's a good thing for City, the last thing we need is the media and fans of other clubs running a ticker tape countdown with daily updates.
The references to in accordance with UK law relate to the process not the charges.My main point was we aren't being tried in accordance with UK Law, because a business owner investing as much of his own money as he likes into his business is perfectly legal.
It only becomes an issue when the rules of a private members clubs are applied, & then & only then is it a "breach" of their rules for a business owner to invest as much as he sees fit into his business.
We're essentially being held to the standards of the private members club, not UK Law.
HOWEVER, when the PL say their rules are run in accordance with UK Law, this also poses a problem, because the PL set the point at which UK Law becomes a consideration.
If UK Law was considered throughout FFP/PSR, there wouldn't be any mention of owner investment in the PL's Red Top Rules "RTR".
Bit old for him :-)Even after Sadio Mane has ragged it
Which makes perfect sense, because FFP/PSR bear little relation to UK Law, which is why it's such a farce that the PL can create their bent self serving rules, then claim only the process itself can be appealed to a UK Court, not the rules themselves.The references to in accordance with UK law relate to the process not the charges.
Now that's the point.Would any of these financial witch hunts even exist if the rags were still winning things most seasons?
So now your back to organisations setting specific rules that don't apply in law. The law doesn't state the maximum you can pay an employee is "x" but other sporting organisations have such rules.Which makes perfect sense, because FFP/PSR bear little relation to UK Law, which is why it's such a farce that the PL can create their bent self serving rules, then claim only the process itself can be appealed to a UK Court, not the rules themselves.
It's toral utter bullshit.