PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Gone for a Burton]

I just can't see that we're going to come out of a 10-week hearing smelling of roses. They'll get us for something, question is what exactly?

Start with 'non cooperation'
.....ie City protecting our commercially sensitive and confidential information.

That's £10 million please !!

 

[KS55]

Whoever is on this panel is stuck between a rock and a hard place. They have to nail City to a door to keep the court of public opinion in check which in the same time results in them accusing a head of state of mass industrial fraud. All hell will break lose which ever way it goes, the premier league has dropped a right bollock here.

I doubt if the panel consider the public reaction for more than 20 seconds.

 

[lancs blue]

I just can't see that we're going to come out of a 10-week hearing smelling of roses. They'll get us for something, question is what exactly?

FFS, they've been investigating us since 2018, if they had fireprooof evidence of anything it would all have been sorted by now.

 

[KS55]

Surely not all of the A4 one side print out?

The funniest thing at CAS apparently was our lawyers’ shocked disbelief at UEFA’s total lack of evidence. Remember UEFA had said publicly that they had a smoking gun document and were not relying on the emails.

 

[Pablo ZZZ Peroni]

For
Fucks
Sake

Mods - can we have a sticky that explains in black and white the case is based on balance of probabilities.

The number of blues who don’t know this is staggering.

Agree.

@Chris in London tried his best with this

115 Charges - FAQs

Mods, this has been a request on and off in the 115 Charges thread for some time. Feel free to move but I thought it might warrant a thread of its own. The idea here is that the information is essentially factual with very little/no opinion thrown into the mix. There are also some significant...

forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk

 

[CC1]

For
Fucks
Sake

Mods - can we have a sticky that explains in black and white the case is based on balance of probabilities.

The number of blues who don’t know this is staggering.

Ok smart arse. I’ll delete the post

 

[Grassland Blue]

Does he actually mention anywhere in his piece the (very high) possibility that we will be cleared … and what will happen then

This is a valid question.
Although perceived to be guilty of 115 transgressions in the court of public opinion, I believe that the independent (ahem) panel will reach a different conclusion and most, if not all, charges, will be marked "Return to Sender".

 

[bluemanchester]

I just can't see that we're going to come out of a 10-week hearing smelling of roses. They'll get us for something, question is what exactly?

The CAS hearing was scheduled for 3 days, 5 days or a week, I cant remember which. But really once the panel had seen UEFA'S evidence it lasted 15 minutes and most of that was trying to read the spliced emails from Der Speigal as the sellotape had smudged the words. Dont worry, support City and if we get to see new grounds next season look on it as an adventure;-)
Trust in Khaldoons irrefutable evidence and Masters been a puppet and soon to be a sacrificial lamb on the red tops alter of doom.

 

[Stockton Heath Blue]

I have just googled this:

“Matters requiring proof must be established to the appropriate standard, namely either on the balance of probabilities or beyond reasonable doubt.
In civil cases, the appropriate standard of proof is the balance of probabilities (or, in other words, whether the tribunal of fact is satisfied that it is more likely than not that the relevant facts occurred). In criminal cases, the appropriate standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt (or, in other words, whether the tribunal of fact can be sure that the relevant facts have been proved).”

So, does anyone know where the standard of proof lies here? To me this sounds like a civil case, criminal sentencing is not on the line here, just the application of internal rules between a ruling body and its members. Of course our owners have clearly said they have irrefutable evidence proving our innocence and I have no reason to disbelieve that hence the answer to the question is immaterial, but it is important to understand.

Given the severity of the charges, and the potential penalties,I would say beyond reasonable doubt.
The charges are effectively saying we have committed fraud along with the auditors and several CEOs of global companies.

 

[mexico1970]

Sounds all a bit secret court to me, it should be held in a civil court or even a criminal court if needed with sanctions to be decided after the case has been heard.

These cunts are taking a long long time to polish the executioners axe.