PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[malg]

Why post shit from Football365 ?

Because it's funny as fuck and unbelievably fans of other clubs believe it.

Oh, and for me, why not post it?

 

[supercity88]

There's no way the PL would have offered us 6-10 points after being hit with over 115 charges. It surely would have had to have been significantly higher IMO.

Regardless of the specifics, the fact we didn't settle is hugely positive because it's evidence of our confidence in getting the charges thrown out.

 

[StillBluessinceHydeRoad]

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

They very probably won't but they won't let it get in the way of running the club.

 

[Stoned Rose]

The 6 point offer completely bamboozles me too, that's if there's any truth in it whatsoever. I can't comprehend why we'd go from chat about expulsion, titles being stripped, all the players and staff having to be sold and all the rest of it, to a sanction in a similar ballpark of Everton/Forest etc. Even if Masters and the PL along with their solicitors thought they had us bang to rights and wished us to settle prior to the hearing, there'd be a much more middle ground they'd have likely offered us.

They could offer us that and if we settled then we could plausibly still win the league.

Where’s this rumour come from?

 

[halfcenturyup]

As this is all playing out in public I would be staggered if the PL had offered a 6pt deduction. Everton were given 10pts initially, reduced to 6 on appeal. So immediately the public perception will be that City have "gotten away with it". I would have thought any offer would be around the 10pt mark so it's at least parallel to Everton's initial penalty, with no opportunity to appeal.

That's before you consider the public fallout from there being a settlement, which would have gone down like a lead balloon. The public would have seen that as incredibly dodgy and also believed that we bribed our way to get to that point.

But if it is true that some settlement approach was made, which I don't dispute and it's logical to reduce ongoing legal costs and speed this up, you can only conclude that City will win this. There's no way a Barrister of Pannick's stature turns down a settlement unless he's very confident the panel will clear us. You don't get to his level by making the wrong judgement call on a matter like that, and City wouldn't be so blind as to ignore his counsel on it.

Just maybe some PL clubs who aren't so keen on seeing City stopped are baulking at the legal costs involved with the case if the PL don't land the most serious charges (together with any possible compensation from the APT case) and would have been encouraging the PL to settle for a big fine to reduce the impact on them ... 2 or 3 million isn't small change to a lot of clubs.

 

[cheekybids]

An enquiry/select committee is not the same as this. Cross examination is very careful and planned rather than open ended and looking at seeing what the witness may come out with.

That makes sense, the only requirement is to convince the panel that the allegations are false & leave the ill feeling at the door….

 

[Akira]

Also in between breaks of being called back into the courtroom ( of which there was a lot as the judge loved to call for a break every 2 hours lol) I got speaking to people on jury service on another case and some of them had lost there jobs as they had been on this particular fraud case for over over 6 months,

Christ, that's crazy.

 

[denislawsbackheel]

I did jury service about 15 years ago now, It was actually a murder case I was on, and despite more than half of my fellow jury members believing there was a good chance the suspect was guilty we just did not have enough clear evidence to find them guilty,

Also in between breaks of being called back into the courtroom ( of which there was a lot as the judge loved to call for a break every 2 hours lol) I got speaking to people on jury service on another case and some of them had lost there jobs as they had been on this particular fraud case for over over 6 months,

Apparently fraud cases are the worse ones for coming to a conclusion as there is usually so many people involved, money trails, different accounts, different countries, various forms of communication, that in the end quite a few of the cases end up collapsing or the people involved being given a not guilty verdict

I always remember the judge and his closing speech to us jury members before we left for the deliberation room, he said ( you must be 100% in your decision, if there is any shed of doubt then you must return a not guilty verdict)

I wonder if this independent panel will work to the same remit, if not 100% in us being guilty then they have to drop all the charges against us,

I actually think that if we get cleared on the main 3 charges then the rest will collapse,

I “woodn’t” have disagreed with the judge…

Furthermore jobs are protected for jurors. Employers cannot dismiss you for being on a jury.

 

[BlueRockape]

Offer Masters a shit load of cash to blow the fukin doors off.
It's got to be cheaper in the long run

 

[Cobwebcat]

Offer Masters a shit load of cash to blow the fukin doors off.
It's got to be cheaper in the long run

He would just spend it all on lollies and forget what he was supposed to say.