PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[cheekybids]

You're doing exactly what other fans say when talking about Everton or Forest, "what about City".

Everton & Forest admitted breaches, been evaluated and then punished. There is no relation to City's case whatsoever, judge Burnham on what he says when our case is finally over (if ever).

I don’t see how you’ve reached that conclusion. I’ll make my point again in case you’ve misunderstood my opinion.

His platform as the mayor of greater Manchester is to represent the people of the boroughs. He’s used it to try & lobby & influence on behalf of Everton & he’s said that in regard to Everton the Premier league aren’t fit for purpose. Now Manchester City have given a statement that they have irrefutable evidence of their innocence & have continued building infrastructure that impacts his major responsibilities including budgets on policing & transport that wouldn’t be required if the charges are successful. It’s folly that he won’t have asked for assurance & once given it he should have been critical of the charges & reiterated City have irrefutable evidence. If he hasn’t spoken to the club in any way then he’s as shit as Masters is at his job.

Or he could have kept his powder dry on everything.

 

[ganganvince]

This is nonsense - to the extent there is a statute of limitations point to run, the IC will decide and will decide in accordance with English law - the rules are expressly stated to be construed in accordance with English law.

There are reasons for the PL to argue that City's actions means the SoL will not apply (concealment/fraud etc) but this is an argument that will have to be made. It may well be moot but it is undeniable there is an English law SoL in the Premier League rules. It was wrongly expressed by the media briefing at the start and it is wrong now.

This is were I get confused surely an independent commission won't have the authority to call fraud, would that not have to go to a higher level for that decision Before the older charges can be considered?

 

[mcfcphil]

I don’t see how you’ve reached that conclusion. I’ll make my point again in case you’ve misunderstood my opinion.

His platform as the mayor of greater Manchester is to represent the people of the boroughs. He’s used it to try & lobby & influence on behalf of Everton & he’s said that in regard to Everton the Premier league aren’t fit for purpose. Now Manchester City have given a statement that they have irrefutable evidence of their innocence & have continued building infrastructure that impacts his major responsibilities including budgets on policing & transport that wouldn’t be required if the charges are successful. It’s folly that he won’t have asked for assurance & once given it he should have been critical of the charges & reiterated City have irrefutable evidence. If he hasn’t spoken to the club in any way then he’s as shit as Masters is at his job.

Or he could have kept his powder dry on everything.

Burnham is an idiot.

 

[GaudinoMotors]

I don’t see how you’ve reached that conclusion. I’ll make my point again in case you’ve misunderstood my opinion.

His platform as the mayor of greater Manchester is to represent the people of the boroughs. He’s used it to try & lobby & influence on behalf of Everton & he’s said that in regard to Everton the Premier league aren’t fit for purpose. Now Manchester City have given a statement that they have irrefutable evidence of their innocence & have continued building infrastructure that impacts his major responsibilities including budgets on policing & transport that wouldn’t be required if the charges are successful. It’s folly that he won’t have asked for assurance & once given it he should have been critical of the charges & reiterated City have irrefutable evidence. If he hasn’t spoken to the club in any way then he’s as shit as Masters is at his job.

Or he could have kept his powder dry on everything.

Perfectly put, but some can't help themselves viewing everything along party lines - when what's at fault/question here is one man's judgment, ego and self-interest. Always has been with Burnham.

 

[jaiguruKun]

Cheers @projectriver - question, do the limitation arguments always take place during the tribunal itself? Or can arguments be heard in a separate prior hearing?

Presumably a prior hearing would save time if it negates the need to go through rafts of evidence? Or do they need to go through the rafts of evidence first to know if limitation applies?

Additionally in the (very) few corporate legal processes I’ve been involved in, lawyers have argued between themselves whether limitation applies to certain aspects of the allegations. Could the same be happening here through channels outside of the tribunal itself?

I’m presuming the tribunal would look very dimly upon a situation whereby a case is brought to them with elements that quite clearly do not meet the limitation threshold due the vast amount of time (and expense) this would waste.

They would need to consider the substance of the allegations themselves to decide whether there has been deliberate concealment i.e. whether limitation period applies or not.

 

[projectriver]

This is were I get confused surely an independent commission won't have the authority to call fraud, would that not have to go to a higher level for that decision Before the older charges can be considered?

The IC may not. But they are being asked to. Civil fraud not criminal fraud.

 

[projectriver]

Cheers @projectriver - question, do the limitation arguments always take place during the tribunal itself? Or can arguments be heard in a separate prior hearing?

Presumably a prior hearing would save time if it negates the need to go through rafts of evidence? Or do they need to go through the rafts of evidence first to know if limitation applies?

Additionally in the (very) few corporate legal processes I’ve been involved in, lawyers have argued between themselves whether limitation applies to certain aspects of the allegations. Could the same be happening here through channels outside of the tribunal itself?

I’m presuming the tribunal would look very dimly upon a situation whereby a case is brought to them with elements that quite clearly do not meet the limitation threshold due the vast amount of time (and expense) this would waste.

It is unlikely here that the SoL arguments could be taken as a separate hearing because they are intertwined with the underlying substantive matters. So it will all be assessed as part of the IC. Lawyers do commonly argue SoL and yes there has probably been correspondence on the point both before and since charge.

The IC will only take a dim view of a case found to be weak substantively. If the substantive case has good grounds then so does the SoL part.

 

[cheekybids]

Mate, no offence but I think you're totally overreacting here.

Let's deal with this point by point... What empirical evidence has Burnham ignored, in what's supposedly a confidential process?

It’s hardly over reacting I just said he was a cock & then had to explain.

Stefan was very vocal about the points he was deliberately ignoring whilst leading the pack. Check Stefan’s Twitter if you want to see.

 

[Dribble]

It’s hardly over reacting I just said he was a cock & then had to explain.

Stefan was very vocal about the points he was deliberately ignoring whilst leading the pack. Check Stefan’s Twitter if you want to see.

I'd rather not. If you're unhappy about Mayor Andy Burnham not coming out & saying City are innocent having not seen any evidence & ahead of a hearing, where do we draw the line?

The Council leader? The Chief Constable? The GMLC? Is it also incumbent on them to do what Burnham's failed to do?

I'll hazard a guess that your personal views of Burnham maybe colouring your view on him not publicly claiming City are innocent.

 

[cheekybids]

Nope. It seems to me the PL can't rely on the information CAS says it reviewed to resolve their problems. They could have taken into account the CAS conclusions in their investigation and they chose not to. Once they did that, they needed the third party information themselves. I am guessing the club hasn't given it to them.

What they would have had is more access to the books and records than UEFA had but, see my post above, I doubt there is much there that can incriminate or absolve.

They won’t use the CAS judgement but they will use Der Spiegel articles tells you everything you need to know.

Having watched the postmasters inquiry it’s beautiful to watch a KC find the motivations behind their actions, particularly ignoring the highest sporting court in the land to believe a tabloid.