I believe the Pearce email, as I said a few days ago, is a complete red-herring. The question is whether Etihad sponsorship is disguised equity investment.For me 80-90% of the substance of this whole fiasco is the integrity of the Etihad Airways sponsorship. When the PL fail to illegitimise it, the level of possible sanctions is far less. Assuming their paid hacks have been breifed througout by the PL, to maintain the constant MSM hate campaign, my personal predictions are as follows.
The one "chink in the amor" re Ethihad is "Pearcegate". The Twat-Harris and Panja etc have repeatedly accused him of perjury at CAS in relation to the question "Did you ever arrange payments on behalf HHSM to disgusie equity funding as sponsorship by Etihad Airways". We were told in CAS2020 that Simon Pearce answered "Categorically Not", and that was the end of it.
Since CAS2020 the Twat et al have relied on a gross misrepresentation of an email where Pearce is arranging payments but NOT from HHSM. I look forward to this issue being resolved 100% by the IC. I anticipate it will take more than "Categorically Not" to do so. Once this accusation has been resolved for ever the likes of Twat-Harris and Panja will have to spend a few more years of their lives scrutinising legacy emails in desperation.
Can we at least agree now that the appeals process is:
Disciplinary panel > Appeals board > Arbitration tribunal > Courts.
At each stage the grounds to appeal to the next step are reduced:
Appeals boards have to be set up whatever the appeal, but difficult (not impossible) to overturn a finding of fact. City likely to appeal against any sanction if one is imposed, I would imagine. Why not? Will be interesting to see if the PL appeals if City are successful and in what areas.
Arbitration tribunal has limited jurisdictional grounds so may refuse a tribunal hearing, but I am sure expensive lawyers can work something out.
A high court appeal has very limited grounds under English law and the PL rules, which makes it virtually (but not completely) impossible.
And, as we all know, there is no possibility of an appeal to CAS in the PL rules.
I think that is it. More or less.
** Waits to be blasted **
Although I trust the person who told me implicitly, I'm still nervous though. Just like I was in the run-up to CAS even when I heard the night before the announcement that we'd won!Lovely :)
dont confuse what they want to happen with what will happen, the red shirts dont run the country as much as people think they doThey need to find us guilty of something if just to satisfy the red shirts
Let's just remind ourselves of one of the key charges, which (to pick one year, 2012/13) involves Rule E3. This rule says:
"Each club shall by 1st March in each season submit to the Secretary a copy of its annual accounts.......(such accounts to be prepared and audited in accordance with applicable legal & regulatory requirements) together with a copy of the Directors' Report for that year and a copy of the auditors' report on those accounts."
I've missed a bit in the middle out but that's the rule - to submit audited accounts for the prior year by March 1st of the following year. So unless we didn't do that (which is highly, highly unlikely) then the IC simply can't find us to have breached that rule. There's nothing in E3 about accuracy, or anything else, and as we saw from the Leicester appeal, the PL can't rely on a defence of "Well what we really meant was...."
If we submitted properly prepared accounts, then we aren't in breach of Rule E3.
There's also the rule about acting in utmost good faith. If we took good legal and financial advice to ensure we acted properly, then how could we not have acted in utmost good faith? I reckon at least half the charges will have gone out of the window by the end of the month.
There you go mate
Of course they will, I belive it's called Pavlov's Red Dog effect.Are sky media going to mention this every day by saying "this is day 2 of the 115" then go through the severe punishment we will get and never mention what will happen if we are cleared!
It would have up until the point that leicester did them on the wording of the rules and how there is nothing in them that suggests that those accounts be accurate.I’d read that, think it was yesterday mate.
Looks pretty straightforward to bat away but I still can’t get my head round them charging us with something we can very easily squash.
Them - you didn’t file the accounts on time / properly.
Us - yes we did. Here they are. Here are the communications between us where we sent them to you. Here are the communications from you saying thanks everything sweet.
Seems a fucking bizarre thing for them to do!
I can't remember the wording of the Pearce e-mail that ever so conveniently surfaced a couple of weeks or so after the CAS verdict didn't go the way that Der Spiegel wanted, but I always thought this question of "arranging payments on behalf of ADUG" was specifically about disguised equity funding and not to do with any other payments he may or may not have arranged.I believe the Pearce email, as I said a few days ago, is a complete red-herring. The question is whether Etihad sponsorship is disguised equity investment.
As per CAS, we know it isn't and that email doesn't alter that. It was just mischief making and misdirection.
Guilty of not being guilty?They need to find us guilty of something if just to satisfy the red shirts