PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[halfcenturyup]

You’re wasted on accounts ;)

I'm wasted most of the time.

 

[Geo72]

Most City fans understand what transpired with UEFA and the CAS result. In terms of CAS the right outcome was reached.

The panel that will sit the PL charges is the same in terms of numbers.

My only concern (and it is a very real concern) is that despite what appears to be irrefutable evidence presented at CAS, the panel/judges only found in favour of City 2 to 1.

That would suggest that the evidence presented was not ‘irrefutable’ at all. For the conspiracy theorists it might also suggest that the UEFA selected judge was always going to rule in favour of UEFA regardless.

I just find it hard to understand how for 2 judges there was ‘no evidence’ presented but for another there was.

It just goes to show how much of a knife edge decisions in a tribunal can be. You just never know do you.

Regardless of the outcome, I lived the glory and nothing will take this away.

 

[TheGhost]

I wonder if City have a "Samson Option" if things go tits up.

Kenny?

 

[ganganvince]

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 **

May be totally wrong but wouldn't there be a route to CAS through the FA as the governing body in UK?

 

[Stoned Rose]

Sky have just said hearing expected to last “up to 2 months”.

Thought we were looking at 12 weeks?

 

[Blue warrior]

Teabag mouthing off again, hopefully gets slotted in the head one day ;)

 

[Kinkys Left Foot]

The accusations were that he arranged funding to Etihad.

But it doesn't matter who arranged it as long as it didn't come from ADUG. But even if it had come from ADUG (which it didn't) CAS determined that it was fair value in terms of the price paid and that Etihad received full consideration in terms of what they got out of it.

This is the bit I have difficulty with in understanding the PLs position regarding the equity funding allegations.

At CAS they know the evidence from the emails has been properly considered against rebuttal evidence provided by CIty including the full run of the emails and therefore the missing context, evidence from City (Pearce) and evidence from Etihad, (didn't Etihad's representative say the allegation they only paid 8 million was ridiculous considering the sponsorship valuation), expert witness testimony from an accounts expert regarding the contents of Etihad's accounts and ADUG accounts (confirming no payments were made, particularly from HHSM or ADUG, but none of sufficient value, or smaller multiples thereof to cover the balance of the sponsorship value.

No other evidence other than the emails was offered by UEFA.

The above provided the basis from which the justices formed their "No evidence" opinion that equity funding took place.

So what possible evidence could be available (that City or Etihad would reasonably release to the PL if they were guilty) to prove such conduct did in fact take place? I strongly suspect there is none.

If there is none then the PL are relying solely that the IC will reach a finding contrary to the CAS justices (ignoring the 2-1 majority debacle). Isn't that going out on a limb somewhat with paper thin reasoning to believe that outcome is possible, considering the more likely outcome?

The more you try and reason it the more perplexing it becomes. Yet the PL are prepared to throw a 5 year, £20 Million "Hail Mary" at it.

Should things go in our favour as I suspect then the PL will get everything they deserve in the fallout. If it were possible I personally think we should pursue them for reputational damages should it be such a spectacular failure. The whole thing will have proved nothing more than a witch hunt with a show trial based on the flimsiest of evidence on already litigated matters.

 

[CC1]

This is the bit I have difficulty with in understanding the PLs position regarding the equity funding allegations.

At CAS they know the evidence from the emails has been properly considered against rebuttal evidence provided by CIty including the full run of the emails and therefore the missing context, evidence from City (Pearce) and evidence from Etihad, (didn't Etihad's representative say the allegation they only paid 8 million was ridiculous considering the sponsorship valuation), expert witness testimony from an accounts expert regarding the contents of Etihad's accounts and ADUG accounts (confirming no payments were made, particularly from HHSM or ADUG, but none of sufficient value, or smaller multiples thereof to cover the balance of the sponsorship value.

No other evidence other than the emails was offered by UEFA.

The above provided the basis from which the justices formed their "No evidence" opinion that equity funding took place.

So what possible evidence could be available (that City or Etihad would reasonably release to the PL if they were guilty) to prove such conduct did in fact take place? I strongly suspect there is none.

If there is none then the PL are relying solely that the IC will reach a finding contrary to the CAS justices (ignoring the 2-1 majority debacle). Isn't that going out on a limb somewhat with paper thin reasoning to believe that outcome is possible, considering the more likely outcome?

The more you try and reason it the more perplexing it becomes. Yet the PL are prepared to throw a 5 year, £20 Million "Hail Mary" at it.

Should things go in our favour as I suspect then the PL will get everything they deserve in the fallout. If it were possible I personally think we should pursue them for reputational damages should it be such a spectacular failure. The whole thing will have proved nothing more than a witch hunt with a show trial based on the flimsiest of evidence on already litigated matters.

Corruption & desperation don’t heed the truth or facts

 

[melrose40yarder]

Some dickhead on talkshite this morning between 5 and 6 said we all know what the charges are.I called them which i never nornally would and asked to be put through so said dickhead could tell me what the charges were guess what they would not put me through.I asked the person if they could ask the presenter to outline the charges so the listeners know what they are they didnt.

 

[Kinkys Left Foot]

Not so, imo. The combination of the filing requirement with the acting in bad faith allegation allows them, I think, to allege that filing accounts with an audit report the board knew to be materially wrong in respect of sponsorship income, gave the club a sporting advantage. Makes sense to me, even though I doubt very much the club did that, or that the PL could prove it even if they did.

Wasn't the argument that in some of the earlier allegations the earlier PL rule book didn't make out the bad faith element and that following the Leicester decision that the rules (E3) had to be interpreted as stated and as such we complied with the E3 requirement as worded?