PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[BlueRockape]

This is a weird statement, basically says it only stops City (and maybe Chelsea) then says doesn’t understand the logic as doesn’t stop anyone…he’s answered his own question surely?

Fukin nut job takes contradiction to a new level

 

[Sk@mcfc]

Just don't engage, turn it into a joke! Who cares what other people think? We're living the dream!

I do mate but I don’t know if the younger ones coming through will as they haven’t seen us through the shit years and can take anything thrown at us but hopefully they carry our humour and not giving a shit on with them

 

[slbsn]

Stefan, have you lost the talksport gig, some other guy on today?

Have you upset Simon ? ;)

I guess so!!

 

[Iassel]

Agree with Dribble, in as far as the Premier League have only ever said in their statement that City breached Premier League Rules. Never anywhere did they refer to charges or being charged. Another one dreamed up by the media fuckwits.

But as Stefan says, it’s purely semantics some cling to, potentially to personally feel better about the whole thing?

Saying the club haven’t been charged, only ‘referred to tribunal’ is like saying your wife hasn’t left you when she’s taken the dog and moved in with Marcellus Wallace.

 

[halfcenturyup]

If we’ve provided irrefutable evidence how can we have not co-operated?

I imagine the irrefutable evidence is for the panel and was kept back from the investigation, presumably because they had no right to see it because it was, imho, external.

I am thinking the PL claims the club have not cooperated by not providing this evidence, whereas the club says it has provided everything to the investigation that it had to under the rules. Which is why I think even the non-cooperation allegation isn't a slam dunk for the PL.

 

[Stoned Rose]

This is a weird statement, basically says it only stops City (and maybe Chelsea) then says doesn’t understand the logic as doesn’t stop anyone…he’s answered his own question surely?

The fact he openly says “it doesn’t stop anybody” is all I need to hear, the bent cunts.

 

[Stoned Rose]

He has had the letter from Lord Pannick, the guy is in full reverse and backtracking, he has praised our turnover today and said it 's an example of a successful club!

Amazing what a piece of A4 and a first class stamp can do.

Nah mate.

Prophet of Mogadon reckons those letters never happened.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Fukin nut job takes contradiction to a new level

Maguire is normally sound. I think his problem is that no-one knows anything about the detail. Hell, it could all get voted down in June.

 

[citizen_maine]

The fact he openly says “it doesn’t stop anybody” is all I need to hear, the bent cunts.

The questions he should be asking is why does anybody need to be stopped and from what?

 

[Maly]

Let me summarise for anyone still trying to get their head around whether the club has been accused of fraud and, if so, why the authorities aren't banging the club's back doors in. Literally and figuratively.

Firstly, this is a breach of contract case. The allegations are that the club breached its contract with the PL. Which is why the referral to the panel doesn't mention the word "fraud", only the alleged breaches of the rules that form part of the contract. It's not a criminal case, no-one is going to jail following the panel's decision.

But, the combination of allegations (presenting errors in the accounts, disguising equity injections, acting in bad faith, failing FFP) do effectively represent fraudulent activity if proven, and the civil sanctions can be punitive. City's lawyers made this point at CAS, CAS agreed and you can be sure the club's lawyers will be doing the same in front of the panel. Why? Because it raises the cogency of the evidence required to prove the allegations. It is generally accepted on here that there is little chance the PL have the evidence to prove their most serious allegations. The higher cogency makes it almost impossible, imho.

So, if the allegations effectively represent fraudulent activity, why aren't the authorities at the Etihad now? Well, there is no definitive answer because no two situations are the same, but let me ask you this. If you were head of the SFO, you had seen UEFA's charges and how they were dismissed, you had followed the PL's allegations, but have no knowledge of the PL's evidence, other than the fact it should most probably be based on the same as UEFA's evidence, what would you do? Go into the PL and the Etihad all guns blazing with your limited resources to get to the bottom of it? Or wait until the panel comes to a conclusion and then decide what to do? I think that is an easy decision, tbh, especially given the way CAS dealt with UEFA's charges.

All imho, of course, and open to being bashed by the lawyers on here.

Wouldn’t the SFO only become involved if the PL handed them evidence of Serious wrongdoing at this stage? Plus, would the PL would be obliged to hand over any evidence or not?