PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

halfcenturyup said:
I don't think it's anything to do with commercial sensitivity. The club were required by the courts to provide everything the PL asked for provided it was within the scope of their investigation (grosso modo). I doubt very much the club didn't comply with that requirement. But that doesn't mean the club was prevented from challenging the PL on their requests and it certainly doesn't mean that the PL could get information from third parties. I am guessing the non-cooperation takes three forms: taking all action possible to delay the investigation; challenging requests for information from inside the company; and not providing information from external parties.

Back to your question. When you are facing a hostile investigation, and after the UEFA investigation and verdict I think there is no doubt that is how it would be judged by the club, you do everything you can to limit the information you give to the investigators. Why? To slow them down, to make them as uncomfortable as possible and to control the flow of information yourself. If the club would have volunteered information in good faith the PL would undoubtedly have had to investigate that information further and, most likely, ask for more. It would be never ending and there may be other things they could find that they may not like. No, you want to control the information flow yourself. In this case by only providing what you think you have to, and then providing what you want to at the right time. In front of the panel.

One of the reasons I am so confident in the club's position is that they have cleverly forced the PL into this disciplinary process by withholding external information so they can effectively decide what external information to provide, knowing what evidence the PL has. They are controlling the information flow to a very large extent. If they were in the least worried they would have provided the information and settled a long time ago.
Click to expand...
Third parties were not subject to PL regs at the time, but they have since added a requirement that they must agree as part of a sponsorship to divulge info that the PL ask for. Overreach, I think. May put some potential sponsors off. If, under the latest rules Etihad, for example, refused to hand info over, would City be charged with non cooperation? All very murky, if you ask me.
I can’t see the Saudis handing info to anybody!
 
KS55 said:
Third parties were not subject to PL regs at the time, but they have since added a requirement that they must agree as part of a sponsorship to divulge info that the PL ask for. Overreach, I think. May put some potential sponsors off. If, under the latest rules Etihad, for example, refused to hand info over, would City be charged with non cooperation? All very murky, if you ask me.
Click to expand...


Sounds like a case of way too many rules, obviously designed to weed out the ones trying to make an attempt to break into the SKY 4.

Hopefully it's backfired on them this time.
 
WRicko said:
I just mean any other proceedings
Click to expand...
There are formal rules on the admissibility of evidence at later court proceedings which has been given at a public enquiry. In this case, any admissibility question would be argued on its merits.
In any case, it is highly doubtful that this saga will go beyond the arbitration or an appeal thereof. The question is moot. Unless, of course, you think Khaldoon signed off false accounts.
 
halfcenturyup said:
I don't think it's anything to do with commercial sensitivity. The club were required by the courts to provide everything the PL asked for provided it was within the scope of their investigation (grosso modo). I doubt very much the club didn't comply with that requirement. But that doesn't mean the club was prevented from challenging the PL on their requests and it certainly doesn't mean that the PL could get information from third parties. I am guessing the non-cooperation takes three forms: taking all action possible to delay the investigation; challenging requests for information from inside the company; and not providing information from external parties.

Back to your question. When you are facing a hostile investigation, and after the UEFA investigation and verdict I think there is no doubt that is how it would be judged by the club, you do everything you can to limit the information you give to the investigators. Why? To slow them down, to make them as uncomfortable as possible and to control the flow of information yourself. If the club would have volunteered information in good faith the PL would undoubtedly have had to investigate that information further and, most likely, ask for more. It would be never ending and there may be other things they could find that they may not like. No, you want to control the information flow yourself. In this case by only providing what you think you have to, and then providing what you want to at the right time. In front of the panel.

One of the reasons I am so confident in the club's position is that they have cleverly forced the PL into this disciplinary process by withholding external information so they can effectively decide what external information to provide, knowing what evidence the PL has. They are controlling the information flow to a very large extent. If they were in the least worried they would have provided the information and settled a long time ago.
Click to expand...
And the club knew from day one that certain club directors were making negative briefings about City to a select bunch of hacks. These club directors can only get such information from someone in the PL leadership in the loop on the investigation. The way the 115 charges narrative was sown was pure bad faith. City are right to be cautious.
 
KS55 said:
Third parties were not subject to PL regs at the time, but they have since added a requirement that they must agree as part of a sponsorship to divulge info that the PL ask for. Overreach, I think. May put some potential sponsors off. If, under the latest rules Etihad, for example, refused to hand info over, would City be charged with non cooperation? All very murky, if you ask me.
I can’t see the Saudis handing info to anybody!
Click to expand...

The rules pre-2022 didn't make any mention of providing third party information as part of an investigation iirc, after that the club had to provide it "when able to do so".

But that wasn't my point. CAS criticised the club, and fined it, for holding information back from the adjudicatory chamber that, in their view, if it had been provided, would likely have led to no charges at all. This, they decided could not be defended as it corrupts the investigatory process. Now, the PL knows the sort of external information that was provided at CAS and would be well within their rights to expect it to be provided, in good faith, to their investigation. The club, I think, chose not to, quite rightly imho, but then that opens up a non-cooperation charge on the same basis as at CAS.
 
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.