@halfcenturyup - hey mate, do you expect the panel will have already reviewed all the case material and any supporting evidence prior to the start of the hearing?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules
- Thread starter ayrshire_blue
- Start date
IF City are cleared of all substantive charges, but are found to have not cooperated, how would that impact on a claim for our legal fees to be reimbursed by the PL? It would be a heck of a lot of money frittered away on such flimsy allegations.
Also, if costs are awarded to City, will all clubs have to chip in with the same amount, or will there be some sort of progressive tax levy, based on turnover (or something)?
Also, if costs are awarded to City, will all clubs have to chip in with the same amount, or will there be some sort of progressive tax levy, based on turnover (or something)?
ChicagoBlue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 10 Jan 2009
- Messages
- 17,569
At its heart, this is a racist, anti-competitive action taken on behalf of a few clubs who are butt hurt they’re not winning the big trophies.
They got a whiff of malfeasance and they’ve run with it to the natural conclusion of what they’re able to do.
Now, it’s up to a so-called Independent Commission, which is under pressure to find fault. Whether they have sufficient actual, hard evidence is literally unknowable by Bluemooners, but we don’t seem to trust the process any more than others who want us killed dead, which tells you it might actually be a decent process (?).
Regardless, under the rules, we are going to need a good reason why we should not be found guilty of the the non-cooperation aspect of these charges. Without some very good reason, and the communications to back that up, it’s hard to see that not sticking, in some form or another…much like CAS.
As for the more serious charges, they are piecemeal attempts to snag us on one or more offenses, including “under the table” payments to Staff and potentially false, misleading, or even fraudulent payments of monies to evade FFP. Those charges come with a very high bar and will need bulletproof evidence to prove, lest someone be left wide open to countercharges from the club for tarnishing the business image of not only a global business, but the members of the royal family they smear. Here, I think we are on firmer ground.
So, where does that leave City?
One expects there will be SOMETHING we are found guilty of, probably the non-cooperation. We may also, perhaps, get ensnared by the Mancini side hustle, but they’ll need documentary proof that was an inside deal. Beyond that, Khaldoon would have to be pretty sure there is not only no documentary evidence or proof of malfeasance or he is going to be in a precarious position, especially given his other, much larger and more visible, position within the “family business.”
In short, it’s a Clash of the Titans, and for the sake of all concerned at the PL, if you go after the King, you’d better make certain you kill him dead. I’m not sure they can, and that could get very, very messy for a few of the people involved.
COME ON, CITY!!!
They got a whiff of malfeasance and they’ve run with it to the natural conclusion of what they’re able to do.
Now, it’s up to a so-called Independent Commission, which is under pressure to find fault. Whether they have sufficient actual, hard evidence is literally unknowable by Bluemooners, but we don’t seem to trust the process any more than others who want us killed dead, which tells you it might actually be a decent process (?).
Regardless, under the rules, we are going to need a good reason why we should not be found guilty of the the non-cooperation aspect of these charges. Without some very good reason, and the communications to back that up, it’s hard to see that not sticking, in some form or another…much like CAS.
As for the more serious charges, they are piecemeal attempts to snag us on one or more offenses, including “under the table” payments to Staff and potentially false, misleading, or even fraudulent payments of monies to evade FFP. Those charges come with a very high bar and will need bulletproof evidence to prove, lest someone be left wide open to countercharges from the club for tarnishing the business image of not only a global business, but the members of the royal family they smear. Here, I think we are on firmer ground.
So, where does that leave City?
One expects there will be SOMETHING we are found guilty of, probably the non-cooperation. We may also, perhaps, get ensnared by the Mancini side hustle, but they’ll need documentary proof that was an inside deal. Beyond that, Khaldoon would have to be pretty sure there is not only no documentary evidence or proof of malfeasance or he is going to be in a precarious position, especially given his other, much larger and more visible, position within the “family business.”
In short, it’s a Clash of the Titans, and for the sake of all concerned at the PL, if you go after the King, you’d better make certain you kill him dead. I’m not sure they can, and that could get very, very messy for a few of the people involved.
COME ON, CITY!!!
Last edited:
bobbyowenquiff
Well-Known Member
To most people the word charge is loaded. It suggests that someone has decided they have a strong case based on detailed evidence. UEFA had virtually no evidence. Not even the entire email trail. This whole saga is about politics not due process.Use of the word charge was definitely intended to sway public opinion; I know when I hear that someone has been ‘charged’ I’ve always assumed that the prosecution has enough evidence to be confident. Calling them alleged breaches makes the PL’s case sound so much more ambiguous.
Nah.. supporters of other clubs have come up with far worse.. check out the 'Aston Villanelle' and 'Quatrain Park Rangers' websites for a start..(!!)Worst. Poem. Ever.
There would be a hearing with the IC on costs in all likelihood. City would say they should get their costs for everything except non-coop and the PL would probably say City should pay 50-70% of the PLs costs because they ultimately were found to have breached. Suspect City would still end up paying some of the PL costs.IF City are cleared of all substantive charges, but are found to have not cooperated, how would that impact on a claim for our legal fees to be reimbursed by the PL? It would be a heck of a lot of money frittered away on such flimsy allegations.
Also, if costs are awarded to City, will all clubs have to chip in with the same amount, or will there be some sort of progressive tax levy, based on turnover (or something)?
Likely PL costs would simply come out of central funds before distribution to clubs - like a sinking fund and not pro rated by turnover.
eastmanc
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 7 Nov 2010
- Messages
- 7,753
- Team supported
- Manchester city
What's he going on about? Why does he believe we are highly likely to be guilty of anything. Strange thing for a City fan to say.it’s highly like you are a unicorn but i can’t imagine the punishment you have go though carrying a horn on your forehead.
Sk@mcfc
Well-Known Member
As long as we clear ourselves in front of any bullshit made up panel I don’t careUnfortunately this is the inevitable outcome of a clear and organised smear campaign against our Club.
Just bring on the next load of inevitable charges to stop us
Has anyone else noticed a softening from some Journalists and pundits about the 115 figure and the use of it by the PL? First Jordan on Talkshite, and now Ornstein.
He says earlier in that clip that’s it’s actually 130 charges, he didn’t soften at all, just looks like it slightly from that small snippet.
Still no mention of where these charges have originated from.
Doctored hacked emails.