PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Rory Bluelow]

It's an interesting question which is, as you suggest, difficult to answer absent sight of the evidence. However, my thinking is that the decision-making progress in bringing the charges may form part of the case because the question of "good faith" in the allegations is subjective.

That is to say someone at the PL has looked at the evidence and formed the opinion that City's actions constutute dishonesty. Whilst, obviously, it is ultimately for the Commission to decide, as it's implicit in the most serious charges, it would seem to be legitimate to cross examine whoever made that decision to bring out whether that opinion was arrived at properly.

Unlike, for example, the Secretary of State who, because (s)he can't see everything, is accepted as being able to delegate that power to their civil servants, I don't think Masters can shift that responsibility. Given the seriousness of the case and all its implications, he absolutely must have signed off on it and, therefore, should be able to justify it.

City, may, of course, believe that the decision-making process was impeccable or that there is nothing to be gained by challenging it but I suspect not and that Masters will end up being cross examined. I certainly hope so.

Those are great points. But the subject of the hearing is the PL’s allegations, their proof and City’s defence. There is certainly a story to be told around the circumstances leading to the decision to proceed with charges (undoubtedly Masters’ decision) and particularly around the framing of the allegations and pre-emptive briefing of a journalist etc. I’m not sure there is a route to those matters through the allegations themselves but would very much hope so !

 

[cheekybids]

I’d like to ask him how journalists had the story to break it as City were served & if he believes that was in the interests of the premier league.

 

[Grassland Blue]

Unfortunately, I just don't buy it. I can't even see City trying to claw back legal fees

I genuinely think the club would be happy that it's over and finally able to operate in relative peace

A fulsome apology repeated for 90 days by our accusers and their acolytes would be satisfactory to me.
What is the point of potentially bankrupting the PL?
This whole farago has gone on for far too long.

 

[slbsn]

It’s funny when you’re not fully immersed in something, and you apply your mind to it fleetingly, you can easily miss something. I always assumed at the back of my mind Masters would give evidence, but thinking about it, it doesn’t make sense, so it was a red herring!

Difficult to see any oral discussions that weren’t minuted taking the case very far one way or the other. Would that even constitute ‘knowledge’? I expect the PL rules require any notification to them to be in writing?

And yes, Masters’ view on sanctions will have no evidential merit whatsoever. That’s plainly a matter for submissions upon a finding of the charges being proved (in part or full).

Yes but say the City witness has a file note and the PL person doesn't - just an example.

 

[johnny crossan]

A fulsome apology repeated for 90 days by our accusers and their acolytes would be satisfactory to me.
What is the point of potentially bankrupting the PL?
This whole farago has gone on for far too long.

I cannot imagine that City will simply forgive and forget a ten year long attempt to destroy them.

 

[Stoned Rose]

I’d like to ask him how journalists had the story to break it as City were served & if he believes that was in the interests of the premier league.

“Good faith” will be turning in it’s grave on that one.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Yes but say the City witness has a file note and the PL person doesn't - just an example.

File notes? Never heard of them! :-)

 

[slbsn]

Could the independent panel legitimately draw any inference if a witness refuses to co-operate / refuses to appear at the hearing?

Yes - say, if any of City's CAS witnesses refused to give evidence, I would think that this could/would create an adverse inference.

 

[Betterdeedthan red]

Is it true the half the charges have been dropped straight away .
About time the whole thing was fucked off as a total farce and waste of time

 

[slbsn]

It's an interesting question which is, as you suggest, difficult to answer absent sight of the evidence. However, my thinking is that the decision-making progress in bringing the charges may form part of the case because the question of "good faith" in the allegations is subjective.

That is to say someone at the PL has looked at the evidence and formed the opinion that City's actions constutute dishonesty. Whilst, obviously, it is ultimately for the Commission to decide, as it's implicit in the most serious charges, it would seem to be legitimate to cross examine whoever made that decision to bring out whether that opinion was arrived at properly.

Unlike, for example, the Secretary of State who, because (s)he can't see everything, is accepted as being able to delegate that power to their civil servants, I don't think Masters can shift that responsibility. Given the seriousness of the case and all its implications, he absolutely must have signed off on it and, therefore, should be able to justify it.

City, may, of course, believe that the decision-making process was impeccable or that there is nothing to be gained by challenging it but I suspect not and that Masters will end up being cross examined. I certainly hope so.

I don't think this will be City's defence. It isn't a good defence anyway IMO