PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Seems to be some "sources" on Twitter and Reddit who are claiming we have won the case. Anybody in the know on this on this board?
 
cheekybids said:
What’s strange about that was it was the hardly the worst comment we’ve faced in the last 2 years but very promptly seized upon.
Click to expand...
Also made by someone who has historically praised City. Why did they target that and him and not take your pick from years and years of much worse from much worse pundits? Timing?
 
Nephin Man said:
Also made by someone who has historically praised City. Why did they target that and him and not take your pick from years and years of much worse from much worse pundits? Timing?
Click to expand...
A fair point.

But I am wondering why he made that comment in the first place when he has previously been reasonable towards us.
 
SatOnTheWall said:
A fair point.

But I am wondering why he made that comment in the first place when he has previously been reasonable towards us.
Click to expand...
Ill-conceived in the pressure cooker of needing to say something there and then, he was showing his true colours, his views have changed, he was being fed what to say, that's what his media career algorithm told him to say ....?
 
The Mike Keegan / Sky article is interesting.. prior to Tim Sherwood they've been brazen in their speculation of the charges, outcome and punishment.

No doubt City have been in touch. But for Sky to suggest that pundits need to stick to the facts implies that the result will trigger the emotionally attached pundits into saying something City would take offence at.

The only scenario this would happen, imo, is if we are cleared of the main charges and we are guilty of non cooperation.

Guess we'll see soon!
 
BusterPhillips said:
The Mike Keegan / Sky article is interesting.. prior to Tim Sherwood they've been brazen in their speculation of the charges, outcome and punishment.

No doubt City have been in touch. But for Sky to suggest that pundits need to stick to the facts implies that the result will trigger the emotionally attached pundits into saying something City would take offence at.

The only scenario this would happen, imo, is if we are cleared of the main charges and we are guilty of non cooperation.

Guess we'll see soon!
Click to expand...

I can think of dozens of other scenarios in which their stupid, ignorant pundits will say something stupid and ignorant. That Sky message means absolutely nothing, imho, other than they have, I would suggest, been told to be more careful about what their stupid, ignorant pundits say, whatever the outcome.
 
BusterPhillips said:
The Mike Keegan / Sky article is interesting.. prior to Tim Sherwood they've been brazen in their speculation of the charges, outcome and punishment.

No doubt City have been in touch. But for Sky to suggest that pundits need to stick to the facts implies that the result will trigger the emotionally attached pundits into saying something City would take offence at.

The only scenario this would happen, imo, is if we are cleared of the main charges and we are guilty of non cooperation.

Guess we'll see soon!
Click to expand...

City have been vocal about the fact they did cooperate & it seems we only expect non cooperation as it was all CAS found against us. Since the charges rules have been updated regarding cooperation which makes me think that we will be cleared of this as well.

IMG_9453.jpeg
 
cheekybids said:
City have been vocal about the fact they did cooperate & it seems we only expect non cooperation as it was all CAS found against us. Since the charges rules have been updated regarding cooperation which makes me think that we will be cleared of this as well.

View attachment 150178
Click to expand...

Correct. We just don't have the information to determine whether a verdict in favour of the PL on non-cooperation is likely or not.

We only know one of the allegations is non-cooperation and that the club has said the above. Anything more than that is just speculation.

Personally, my guess would be that it's not a slam dunk for the PL even if it is likely the softest and easiest potential "win" for them. As always, it's up to the detail of the allegation and the club's counter-arguments.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Correct. We just don't have the information to determine whether a verdict in favour of the PL on non-cooperation is likely or not.

We only know one of the allegations is non-cooperation and that the club has said the above. Anything more than that is just speculation.

Personally, my guess would be that it's not a slam dunk for the PL even if it is likely the softest and easiest potential "win" for them. As always, it's up to the detail of the allegation and the club's counter-arguments.
Click to expand...

What Ive learnt in my ‘Bluemoon law certificate’ is that the discovery process is normal & lengthy. It appears that the Premier League may well have jumped the gun.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
I agree. I think City now know the outcome, at least in outline if not in detail.
Click to expand...
This is a good point from PB. I believe that we know the outcome as least in outline. If we had lost then the PL and the red cartel clubs would have leaked something to their favoured journalists and something would have been indicated in the press.
There has been nothing.
 
cheekybids said:
What Ive learnt in my ‘Bluemoon law certificate’ is that the discovery process is normal & lengthy. It appears that the Premier League may well have jumped the gun.
Click to expand...

For what it's worth, I suspect that, if we beat the non-cooperation charges it will be because of the investigators over-reaching their powers, particularly in attempting to secure information from 3rd parties.
 
Last edited:
Newman Noggs said:
For what it's worth, I suspect that, if we beat the non-cooperation charges it will be because of the investigators over-reaching their powers, particularly as regards securing information from 3rd parties.
Click to expand...

I think that’s the point I’m clumsily alluding to. We were perfectly in our rights to question why & it’s part of the discovery process that they have to allow for us to take place.

I also think we give too much credit that the lawyers acting for the premier league were competent. They got so much wrong on releasing the charges that I think it’s similar to the Post Office review we see a culture of arrogance & incompetence from the Board, CEO, Investigators & Lawyers.
 
cheekybids said:
I think that’s the point I’m clumsily alluding to. We were perfectly in our rights to question why & it’s part of the discovery process that they have to allow for us to take place.

I also think we give too much credit that the lawyers acting for the premier league were competent. They got so much wrong on releasing the charges that I think it’s similar to the Post Office review we see a culture of arrogance & incompetence from the Board, CEO, Investigators & Lawyers.
Click to expand...
That initial list of charges/accusations was such a shambles that I doubt it had undergone legal scrutiny.
 
Newman Noggs said:
For what it's worth, I suspect that, if we beat the non-cooperation charges it will be because of the investigators over-reaching their powers, particularly in attempting to secure information from 3rd parties.
Click to expand...

That's what I am hoping - not expecting - as well. The various court cases requiring the co-operation required by the rules, the changes in the the rulebook during the investigation around 3rd party evidence, the apparent appeal by the club against (possibly) applying these new rules, and so on all give me a degree of confidence that, at least, the question of non-cooperation may not be straight forward for the PL.

This also ties into my theory (that nobody else shares) that the club has manipulated the availability of 3rd party evidence to get all these allegations settled in an independent environment. If I am right, we will see soon enough if the club was right to do that. If I am wrong, who cares?

:)
 
'The facts' is language straight from the mouth of Khaldoon, IMO. We have him on record using those exact words, and it is not language that has been used by any other party in this case. I contend that this is likely to be a briefing from Manchester City to the media in advance of the agreed release date that @slbsn and others have stated is a part of this process.
 
RegisteredToSeePhotos said:
Click to expand...

The fact they even have to remind them of this and to be professional is telling.

I like this bit in the article.
'Last year, Mail Sport reported that City had triumphed over the Premier League in a separate legal battle on rules on sponsorship deals with related parties. At the time, some suggested the verdict was actually a win for the Premier League. The rules were subsequently ruled unlawful in their entirety - and those on the email list have been told to be wary that both sides may 'attempt to claim victory in some form' when it comes to the 115 charges.'

Did we not 'slightly' triumph over the PL? :)
 
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