PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Blabbermouth Jordan with an interesting new take on the charges on TalkShite

Called out the number 115 as bullshit and stated it's really 4 or 5 and of that 4 or 5 only 2 matter in any material way. He did say he thinks city have a case to answer (his prerogative) but I found the fact that he was at pains to all of a sudden change tact from sensationalist 115 to 2...

Yes, I know he's a **** but I think this highlights the significant calming of the rhetoric from some camps in the MSM
 
halfcenturyup said:
If the worst came to the worst, is the process:

Section W Disciplinary Panel > Section W Appeals Panel > Section Y Tribunal > High Court.

Of course, there must be grounds at each stage, but is that it, however unlikely it would be? (I get the point about the potential for this process keeping the panels "honest" even if we think that won't be necessary).
Click to expand...

I think that's how it would go, yes. In theory, we might be able to apply to the court after the first panel's ruling, but unless we could show somehow that the process was fatally flawed and should simply be discontinued (and that's a very high bar), the court would probably just refer the matter to the panel to be reconsidered. So it would be pretty pointless, I think, to do anything other than go through all stages and then challenge the final award if, say, we thought the PL's interference had compromised the proceedings throughout.

It's obviously a rather unlikely turn of events. However, I raised it just because some people fear a stitch up, and it's worth noting that there is a legal safeguard. I still expect the panel to do a proper and professional job.
 
ayrshire_blue said:
Bookies will initially announce their prices for teams to be relegated, as they do every season as standard. City would usually be the least favourites to go down and subsequently be placed at the largest odds possible, maybe along with Liverpool and Arsenal. Due to the hearing taking place in Autumn, one outcome possibly being enforced relegation, they are in a bit of a conundrum because they don't want to place the odds too high incase people bet on it at that price and the club are relegated which forces them to pay out loads of money.

They have shortened their odds accordingly but nothing like to odds which would suggest they have any information on a likely outcome whatsoever. We're still placed as rank outsiders to be relegated but they have covered their arse to some extent, possibly deterring some punters from betting us because the odds make it no longer worthwhile.

From here, the only way odds may be an indication is if we're suddenly backed in to one of the strong favourites to be relegated and our price shortens dramatically. With the lack of leaks thus far I don't see anything happening with the odds until after the hearing.

TL;DR don't pay them much attention, it's a story out of nothing.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Basically they think (not that they have any great amount of information to go on, but that's fairly standard for the betting industry), that there's less than a 4% chance of us being found guilty and then getting relegated as punishment.
 
NowInMilnrow said:
One thing that we thought would hinder, but would then help us is that the head of the Premier League's independent judicial panel, Murray Rosen KC, is an Arsenal season ticket holder!
Click to expand...
I thought we objected to Murray Rosen not because he is an Arsenal fan, as is Pannick defending us, the objection was that he is employed by the Premier League and as such maybe he can't be fully independant. Obviously I may have got this wrong and I'm very happy to be corrected, as there's so much been written on this.
 
Mr Ed (The Stables) said:
I thought we objected to Murray Rosen not because he is an Arsenal fan, as is Pannick defending us, the objection was that he is employed by the Premier League and as such maybe he can't be fully independant. Obviously I may have got this wrong and I'm very happy to be corrected, as there's so much been written on this.
Click to expand...
Quite possibly, yes. But again, that would make the argument that the panel were corrupted by us look more ridiculous also.
 
NowInMilnrow said:
Exactly. Basically they think (not that they have any great amount of information to go on, but that's fairly standard for the betting industry), that there's less than a 4% chance of us being found guilty and then getting relegated as punishment.
Click to expand...
That's my reading of it too. Less than 4% chance of getting relegated by a business that lives or dies on being right.
 
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.