PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[halfcenturyup]

you're wrong, the rule is the rule as written. See the Leicester case where the PL lost due to the rule being written as it is. That is how law works, it's not oh we actually meant this by that rule. The PL are a sloppy organisation and the rules are sloppily written and quite frankly opens the door for the city solicitors to walk through really easily. Again this is all pre 2014 before they cracked down and the rules.

Solicitors?

I've already explained the difference with the Leicester case.

But I am done arguing my case. If I am wrong, the hearing will be finished by the end of this week after the club has presented the filing dates for the accounts and the required future financial information. That isn't going to happen.

And, without wanting to open up a new front, exactly what changes were made to the most serious rules that are alleged to have been breached (the first tranche) after 2014? I think you will find those rules are pretty much the same now as they were in 2009/10.

 

[StillBluessinceHydeRoad]

i think tney will make something stick , they just cant be seen to have taken it this far for nothing . This good faith thing seems a grey area

i too trust khaldoon 100%

Many on here put this argument forward in the run up to CAS. But I don't think you were ever one of them kaz. What's changed?

 

[Woody135]

Not really. It is very much a judgement call and could all come down to interpretation of the rules and accounting practices.

That would mean you think there’s a sliding scale on what we’ve been accused of. Like we disguised some owner funding as sponsorship and filed fraudulent accounts and had companies invest billions after due diligence, but its ok because if you interpret the premier league rules this way its kind of allowed.

Of course I dont know but I just can’t believe its this grey. I’ll accept whatever decision comes and any appeal of a guilty verdict* just wont wash for me personally. Im choosing to believe that this process is fair and independent because to not do so is just too big of a conspiracy.

*I’m 99% confident of a non guilty verdict based on the severity of the charges (so serious that its barely believable) and reaction of our leadership team.

 

[abu13]

The way I look at it, the vast majority of opposition fans and the media are painting a picture that we are fucked. Funnily enough though none have them have any access to the evidence or scope of the charges.

On the other hand we have the management team and ownership at City, they know the charges, the scope and the evidence and by all accounts they are quite chilled about it, I think it was Tolm that said we feel more confident than we did in the Uefa case.

So, based on this I know which side of the fence I am taking.

 

[Sofiablu]

If I was the PL, I'd be cross examining every witness. The Mancini matter is dead with an unchallenged witness statement. If a witness statement is unchallenged, the panel are likely to accept every word as unchallenged evidence ie fact.

What if he (and others) decline to be cross examined?

 

[eversince 76]

Happy there is a footballgame tonight.

 

[TinFoilHat]

Happy there is a footballgame tonight.

Celtic?

Fuck all else being advertised on BBC Sport

 

[jacko74]

Whether we agree with the rules or not, rules are rules.

It’d be like a shoplifter getting convicted of nicking a load of clothes from JD then saying “nah mate the rules are snide, so it doesn’t count”.

We signed up to the rules. If we didn’t agree with them we shouldn’t have done.

Nah, very poor comparison, there are plenty of rules and laws that are just and justified and are there for the good of society as a whole and are applied even handedly.. then there are some rules that are entirely unjust and iniquitous and only in place to benefit and enrich a certain section of society, chiefly the wealthy and privileged.

And what do you think would have happened if we hadn't signed up to the rules?

We had no choice but to sign up to them or else we would have faced the same persecution, vilification and potential punishment that we're now experiencing.

 

[HolisticJim]

UEFA spent years investigating us too and look how that ended for them at CAS. They also broke their own time-barring rules in order to find us guilty on some of the charges which is beyond desperation. And that’s despite them having a legal team.

Obviously, there’s no CAS this time but the IC is pretty much the equivalent of CAS in that it will be independent of the PL which should result in a fair hearing.

Is it a wishy washy case? On the face of it, I think it is. No doubt there were questions for us to answer but the evidence appears to be only circumstantial and if this was being heard in a proper court of law I reckon it would’ve been thrown out before it even got there. Of course, there could be a “smoking gun” that none of us aware of and City could’ve been lying to us all along about their innocence but I don’t buy that, not least because of Pep’s bullishness in recent press conferences. I don’t think he’d be saying those things if the club weren’t confident of their position.

Great post. I hope you're right pal!

 

[BerkshireBlue]

Solicitors?

I've already explained the difference with the Leicester case.

But I am done arguing my case. If I am wrong, the hearing will be finished by the end of this week after the club has presented the filing dates for the accounts and the required future financial information. That isn't going to happen.

And, without wanting to open up a new front, exactly what changes were made to the most serious rules that are alleged to have been breached (the first tranche) after 2014? I think you will find those rules are pretty much the same mow as they were in 2009/10.

The rules are nothing like they were in 2009/10 have you done any research on it whatsoever