PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[abu13]

I have been thinking about this and how the Leicester shambles may have played out.

Given that Leicester won based on the actual wording of the rules rather than an interpretation, does this go a long way to explain our stance on the none co-operation charges. I don't for one minute image Pannick and his team were not aware of this. Maybe it was a case of the PL requesting information that wasn't an "absolute" of the wording of the rule. Now if that is the case and we held information back due to this, then surely the Leicester ruling is a precident and subsequent charges get dismissed.

 

[nmc]

The PL have just lost an appeal through a pretty glaring fuck up so don't question their stupidity.

A glaring fuck up that was initially waved through by the so called independent panel…. Not only shows the PL to be incompetent but their panel of legal experts haven’t exactly covered themselves in glory and have undermined their credibility too. Add to that the tone of the PLs statement which seemed to indicate a narrative of disappointment that the (so called) independent panel had finally shown some er independence in the appeal process. The sooner the government introduces a regulatory body the better - the PL are extraordinarily incompetent and seem to be able to demonstrate it at every turn. No one can have any faith in Masters - who frankly would be out of his depth in a puddle.

 

[117 M34]

For master's appointment, a few things need to be answered.
Why did united and Liverpool get to speak to him and effectively interview him?
Why were those 2 clubs decided on out of the 20 clubs in the league?
What questions was he asked by them 2 clubs?
Why did so many others turn the job down after being interviewed?

 

[citizen_maine]

I have been thinking about this and how the Leicester shambles may have played out.

Given that Leicester won based on the actual wording of the rules rather than an interpretation, does this go a long way to explain our stance on the none co-operation charges. I don't for one minute image Pannick and his team were not aware of this. Maybe it was a case of the PL requesting information that wasn't an "absolute" of the wording of the rule. Now if that is the case and we held information back due to this, then surely the Leicester ruling is a precident and subsequent charges get dismissed.

They changed the rules in 2022(?) to broaden the scope of what they could ask for. It wouldn't surprise me if they've tried to apply the new rules to the old years and we've told them to do one

 

[Kinkys Left Foot]

Heres the latest posting from another united fanboy. Any information in this we've not seen before - he says its all new stuff from a "whistleblower". Its to do with the Toure contractual payments of which there seemed to be a sparsity of detail available particularly regarding to what the charges actually "alleged". We assume Toure was part of the allegations of "None declaration of contractual payments" although thats never been confirmed anywhere.
@slbsn

 

[johnnytapia]

And Dineage only had to see things close up for a matter of days before deciding it wasn’t for her.

HOW?

 

[homerdog]

Strange that they didn't tie the change of year end into a deliberate act to avoid the PL's jurisdiction in a bad faith charge.

After all, that seems to be what they have done with City...

I would guess that's what the PL might well have thought Leicester did, but the panel didn't agree. Hopefully, the panel will take an equally dim view of our charges, assuming the PL are as incompetent as they seem.

 

[pudge]

My kingdom for one media outlet/personality to have the bollocks to ask what happens if we're innocent

 

[richards30]

But one member of CAS agreed with them

yep.............. the one they suggested for the panel!

 

[halfcenturyup]

I have been thinking about this and how the Leicester shambles may have played out.

Given that Leicester won based on the actual wording of the rules rather than an interpretation, does this go a long way to explain our stance on the none co-operation charges. I don't for one minute image Pannick and his team were not aware of this. Maybe it was a case of the PL requesting information that wasn't an "absolute" of the wording of the rule. Now if that is the case and we held information back due to this, then surely the Leicester ruling is a precident and subsequent charges get dismissed.

I am pretty sure the only information that was held back was information for which we had legal advice confirming that they weren't valid requests under the rules. Thinking that is primarily external information that we, strangely enough, couldn't get access to during the investigation, but miraculously got access to for the panel. Perfectly fine according to the letter of the rules, but they may consider it to be in bad faith, as CAS did actually.

Nevertheless, that is one of the reasons, I think non-cooperation may not be such a slam dunk for the PL, especially after the Leicester verdict where the wording of the rules, not the intention, is paramount.