PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

BlueMoonz1977 said:
Just watching the typical city interview with Stefan. Interesting part for me
, Stefan mentions the following ' either the alleged fraud did not occur, or, the independent commission is not able to establish to the necessary legal standard that these things occurred'

and right there in that last part could be the PL get out of jail card statement and finding. It would find no charge (except for maybe non co-operation) but leave the red shirts and media to still say city are guilty but got off on a technicality once again

@KS55 - this a possibility maybe
Click to expand...

That is almost certainly the outcome.

They won't be able to prove it (the most serious charges) either because it didn't happen or because they will not have access to the evidence they need to prove it.

People can say what they like. Who cares?

Edit: I should have said the most serious charges. Amended above. They can still have some success on non-compliance and, probably, some disclosure issues.
 
Last edited:
jrb said:
PB.

I asked the question. Don’t think it got a reply looking back. Do you know the reason or reasons why 1 of the 3 CAS Judges found City guilty? Was their reason/reasons ever stated in the judges final decisions? Thanks.
Click to expand...
CAS provided an adjudicator. City proposed one & UEFA the other, presumably to provide balance.

It was the Panel member proposed by UEFA who (surprise surprise) founded against us if memory serves me right.

However, it really shouldn't come as that much of a surprise because if the plank agreed with City, that'd be the end of his lucrative association with UEFA.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
You say that but the CAS verdict was quite clear that there was no issue with either the Etihad contract (most of which wasn't time-barred) or the Etisalat contract (which was). Yet people like Jordan still go on about time-barring when it had zero impact on the outcome.
Click to expand...
Any chance of a definitive layman's rebuttal of this PB?

I usually say 'only a tiny percentage of the charges were time barred and City had them covered anyway'.

Obviously I'm winging it in on the subject. Is that broadly correct though?
 
give it to gordon said:
Just seen that Etihad Airways are thinking of going on the stock market thingy. Apparently that is good news for us because it means Etihad Airways accounts will be open to everyone.

The article states that Etihad Airways wouldn't be doing this if they had committed fraud with City in the sponsorship deal.

www.mirror.co.uk

City sponsors' plan deals big twist amid Premier League's 115 financial charges

Manchester City are facing 115 charges from the Premier League for breaking financial regulations but the club's owners could potentially navigate the charges with a fresh idea
www.mirror.co.uk www.mirror.co.uk
Click to expand...
Prick Harris will be busy for a few weeks while he tries to find out if Etihad have overspent on toilet duck.
 
jrb said:
PB.

I asked the question. Don’t think it got a reply looking back. Do you know the reason or reasons why 1 of the 3 CAS Judges found City guilty? Was their reason/reasons ever stated in the judges final decisions? Thanks.
Click to expand...
Ulrich Haas was nominated by UEFA to sit on the panel, Andrew de Lotbinière McDougall was nominated by City - both are experienced CAS arbitrators.

From memory Haas’ reasons for finding on the balance of probabilities that UEFA had proven their case are not detailed.
 
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.