PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[thismeansfour]

I have a very basic question which I am sure has an easy answer, apologies if it has been covered.

When Abramovic sold Chelsea, I am sure I read he wiped off a 1.5B pound loan. Now surely if it was easy as just drawing up a loan from the owner to the club, why would City choose to fudge sponsorship deals or make secret payments to people? Why was it also acceptable for a loan of that side be made from owner to the club, then simply wiped off? Couldn't the sheikh send a billion our way then say actually don't worry about it?

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

No point in calling Masters as he would just aimlessly wander around unless we also insisted his carer accompanied him.

He’d send someone else anyway……

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

See, I told you I know nothing about any of this :)

Different question then. Can the club call Masters as a witness?

I answered that a couple of pages ago. Theoretically, but highly unlikely they will, and even more unlikely their request would be granted.

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

Are you still not allowed near schools and nurseries?

That's MCFC Wirral/ peofrey

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Had to miss the Gillingham game. Gutted.

It was shite until injury time.

 

[Groke]

This email says you were going to kill your wife. It looks very much like you are a murderer?

I call my first witness….the wife.

or
email 1: I'm going to kill the gym this afternoon
email 2: I'm going out with my wife tonight
Der Spiegel evidence: I'm going to kill my wife tonight

 

[supercity88]

I get what you’re saying but (other than in relation to non cooperation) what is the evidential merit of the process that led to the decision to charge us?

If it was flawed (which it manifestly was) how does that make it less likely we have broken the rules which we’ve been accused of breaking. How does a decision in 2023 affect something that was alleged to have occurred in 2009 (for example)?

There would be no evidential merit in terms of the charges themselves but you'd imagine, like at CAS, we do make the point that there has been a witch-hunt and failures within the organisation that caused us concern. It's unlikely to get us anywhere, it didn't with CAS for example and led to the non-cooperation fine, but I would anticipate the club still make that point and question the timing of everything.

In all honesty it's a similar case as the PL are likely making. We assume there's been pressure from the history boys to bring charges, with a looming independent regulator being threatened. The PL assume the hacked emails point to fraudulent activity. Both are making a huge jump and are very hard/impossible to prove. But it doesn't stop you trying.

 

[cheekybids]

This email says you were going to kill your wife. It looks very much like you are a murderer?

I call my first witness….the wife.

They call that getting off on a technicality……

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

There would be no evidential merit in terms of the charges themselves but you'd imagine, like at CAS, we do make the point that there has been a witch-hunt and failures within the organisation that caused us concern. It's unlikely to get us anywhere, it didn't with CAS for example and led to the non-cooperation fine, but I would anticipate the club still make that point and question the timing of everything.

I think it’s a valid line of cross examination to pursue with any witness who is in a position to assist but the tribunal may well intervene if they think it’s not relevant to the charges, especially if it’s repeatedly pursued.

I guess it depends on how the PL litigates the non-cooperation in their evidence as much as anything. If City’s defence to that is the PL was acting in bad faith and you shouldn’t be compelled to cooperate with a bad faith actor then I would guess it’s got to be a valid line of questioning.

 

[cheekybids]

I have no experience in any of this, but it's interesting to learn and it's all fascinating as fuck.

If you did you’d be on £5k per hour :)