PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[MillionMilesAway]

and because it's time-barred doesnt mean it's dodgy thats just straw clutching from mouthbreathing 115 mob

didn't CAS also write that even if it wasn't time-barred, there was still no evidence of wrongdoing?

 

[bluemanchester]

And that is the thing that the eejits don't get.

With my limited understanding...if I sent an email to you saying I was going to come round your house tomorrow and beat you up and tomorrow, you get beat up...does it mean I did it?

As you might be or have been from Salford, then probably yes;-)

 

[BlueRockape]

Did Stefan actually go as far to say City would be cleared? Or has the YouTuber added his own opinion?

Thanks

My hope with the premier case is that an agreement can be made before the tribunal is concluded.

He virtually said yes due to the complicated and serious nature of the changes .
Above the PL remit.
And if found guilty the aftermath would be very awkward for them

 

[wolviedinho]

To prevent sensitive commercial information falling into the hands of our rivals perhaps?

Its doesn’t seem worth it but I trust the club to have a strategy in place and if they deem it more important to keep the business plan intact then the 115 is shrapnel.

The multi club model is what they are after imo.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

and because it's time-barred doesnt mean it's dodgy thats just straw clutching from mouthbreathing 115 mob

Exactly. Because certain things were time barred doesn’t mean that we would have been found guilty had they not have been; they were never scrutinised as it was pointless.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Why would the club choose this course of action?

All imho, but :

First, because the club thinks, under the rules, they aren't required to.

Second, because if the club started giving information they aren't required to, the PL could have asked for more and more and a refusal to do so, having done it once, could be seen negatively. It's a question of controlling the information flow.

Put it this way, at CAS the club provided an analysis of payments made by ADUG over a certain threshold to show that no monies had gone from ADUG to Etihad. UEFA had some concerns about this report. Had the club presented this report to the CFCB, UEFA could have asked for changes to the report, different information. At CAS, the tribunal could only balance the relevant of weight of the report presented and UEFA's concerns on it. There were no negative connotations to be drawn from the procedure.

Always a rule. Never volunteer information.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

My WhatsApp group has lit up because of this Forest news, could any of you more intelligent people refute this?

The reason a lot of people think they are guilty is there were leaked documents which UEFA were given which showed there was false accounting (and I think City maybe even admitted to it?). But under UEFA's rules too much time had passed to charge them, whereas the Premier League doesn't have a time limit in its rules.

Given that senior officials from UEFA were systematically leaking confidential business information about City throughout the process I am certain that if there were any "smoking gun" documents they would also have been leaked. Remember that CAS reduced our non-co-operation allegation to a much lower fine because they accepted that UEFA had leaked information.

 

[deano ou812]

He’s already decided we’re guilty, he hates City our ownership model. “Frankenstein club” even if City are cleared he won’t accept it. He’s a posh speaking tosser!!

Posh ! He’s a corner boy who thinks he’s a big noise using the odd big word failed owner of a football club which took a proper business man to fix ..

 

[wolviedinho]

All imho, but :

First, because the club thinks, under the rules, they aren't required to.

Second, because if the club started giving information they aren't required to, the PL could have asked for more and more and a refusal to do so, having done it once, could be seen negatively. It's a question of controlling the information flow.

Put it this way, at CAS the club provided an analysis of payments made by ADUG over a certain threshold to show that no monies had gone from ADUG to Etihad. UEFA had some concerns about this report. Had the club presented this report to the CFCB, UEFA could have asked for changes to the report, different information. At CAS, the tribunal could only balance the relevant of weight of the report presented and UEFA's concerns on it. There were no negative connotations to be drawn from the procedure.

Always a rule. Never volunteer information.

Very informative mate. Can I keep you on retainer? -:)

 

[mancboy]

Close enough :)

The most important point, in my opinion, is that the emails in themselves don't prove anything. Ask any lawyer. What is important is what actually happened after the discussions in any emails. UEFA couldn't prove that what they thought was discussed in the emails actually happened. They couldn't even prove what they thought was discussed in the emails was what was actually discussed. So a combination of the accounting records which did show what actually happened and personal statements from people who actually knew what happened, describing what did actually happen (and what UEFA thought happened didn't) along with some external financial evidence from sponsors and owner, all carried more weight than a few unsubstantiated allegations.

The same will happen to the PL allegations, imho.

And yes, the tine-barring is a red herring, the evidentiary situation is the same.

This right here is the point, emails in of themselves dont prove anything, there has to be concrete evidence outside of the emails to prove it. In effect it would be like me emailing a car dealership and saying i would like to buy this car, i have the money and them sending me the car on the strength of that email.

Unfortunately thats not how things work.