PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[ayrshire_blue]

No. Read @Bez at #57,586 post above.

I have, and I completely understand the principle of just because people state their intentions via email it doesn't mean they were necessarily carried out. I'm comfortable with that.

I'm specifically referring to the emails where club employees, again via email, suggest the actions have already been carried out. Not plans to carry them out, not suggestions or intentions, but referring to have actually previously done them.

Of course, what they could be admitting to having previously done might be nothing illegal at all, but that's sort of the basis of my question.

 

[KS55]

I have, and I completely understand the principle of just because people state their intentions via email it doesn't mean they were necessarily carried out. I'm comfortable with that.

I'm specifically referring to the emails where club employees, again via email, suggest the actions have already been carried out. Not plans to carry them out, not suggestions or intentions, but referring to have actually previously done them.

Of course, what they could be admitting to having previously done might be nothing illegal at all, but that's sort of the basis of my question.

There still has to be corroboration of the statement ‘like we did before’ ie is there evidence that we actually did whatever it was before?

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

There still has to be corroboration of the statement ‘like we did before’ ie is there evidence that we actually did whatever it was before?

Or when was it done before?
Pre-FFP?

 

[I'm Blue]

For anyone wanting a catchup on the last few days I can catch you up rather simply.
Someone on Twitter(X)..

 

[ayrshire_blue]

There still has to be corroboration of the statement ‘like we did before’ ie is there evidence that we actually did whatever it was before?

Or when was it done before?
Pre-FFP?

I think the one I read earlier specifically referred to having done so "in the previous quarter", email was from December 2012.

KS55 point is still valid however.

 

[The Colonel]

It was the same before CAS when we had the 6 original emails. Plenty saying that "it doesn't look good", even Stefan was of that view as I recall when taken in isolation. But as he says, this, again, is just half the story - even it's genuine!
Chill we this covered. The club were confident before CAS, they are even more so now.

 

[CC1]

In 2012/13, we thought we needed a specific bottom line maximum loss in order to be able to invoke the Annex XI provision to take advantage of pre-June 2010 wages. That's why we accelerated the Etihad payments and did the Fordham deal. In the end, UEFA shifting the goalposts on the application of those wages rendered these actions irrelevant but we didn't know that at the time.

There's absolutely nothing either new of remotely fraudulent in those actions. And if the IC agree it's not fraudulent, then they'll be time-barred anyway.

I remember them moving the goalposts. Disgraceful really & I don’t think we’d accept it now

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

I think the one I read earlier specifically referred to having done so "in the previous quarter", email was from December 2012.

KS55 point is still valid however.

His point is very valid.
Certainly in a criminal court, as said previously, these emails would seem to me to be third party conversations. Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe the IC won’t run the same.

But with the same “testimony” as I’ve previously referred to it, seemingly having gone to CAS and CAS unequivocally accepting the explanations City’s defence presented to them, I’m still optimistic that our owners are correct in their summation and what they are telling us, the team, Pep and whatever media are willing to listen (not many, hence silence being best), is the accurate story of these emails.

I don’t do social media, so haven’t read all the stuff being currently discussed in here, but I trust the regular few experts when they say there’s nothing new here.

I don’t have a legal background but work in the courts over here and I’ve listened to many a prosecution’s opening speech and cross examination of witnesses and thought, “this guy is banged to rights “, I believe is the phrase you use, only to have my opinion totally swayed by the angle presented by the defence.

We were found not guilty in a proper court and without new evidence I fully expect us to be found not guilty again.

If the PL processes are fair and equitable, that is how it should be, I believe.

 

[GBUG]

That thread reads absolutely horrible for us, particularly if (and it seems so) the emails are authentic and not doctored.

It doesn’t at all. It’s one side of the story. TBH most of it I found quite plausible from our side.

 

[Invisible Man's Bandage]

Just to finish off trying to point out the agenda based bias throughout Magic Twat's thread:

His view is that being found guilty of the non co-operation claims only (I don't consider them to be charges) should result in the club being relegated.

It's just the usual bollocks dressed up in legal language but loads of it to give it 'gravitas'.