Stoned Rose
Well-Known Member
Stop reading them then.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules
- Thread starter ayrshire_blue
- Start date
Stop reading them then.
Stoned Rose
Well-Known Member
PB posted yesterday that he has heard from a good source that we were offered a settlement. He believes this part to be true.
But he also then stated he heard from someone else that we had been offered 6 points and a huge fine by the PL. The credibility of this second rumour/piece of information, PB believes, is more dubious.
Not to minimise any information anyone puts forward on here but I think we should be very careful to not take that as gospel.
But this on the balance of probabilities-so 51%, not beyond all reasonable doubt as is needed in any criminal case.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,
Champions again in 2012
Well-Known Member
Thanks so the right to remain silent could harm your defence in this instance.Yes - say, if any of City's CAS witnesses refused to give evidence, I would think that this could/would create an adverse inference.
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
Beyond reasonable doubt isn’t strictly the test anymore, it’s being ‘sure’, although it basically amounts to the same thing tbf.But this on the balance of probabilities-so 51%, not beyond all reasonable doubt as is needed in any criminal case.
10 weeks?Its going to be a long 10 weeks reading some of these headlines on social media.
All regurgitated going round and round in a circle
Here are some of the punishments Man City could face
Here are the 115 charges explained
City players agents exploring options in case of relegation
More like 10 months before the verdict and even then the possibility/probability on an appeal from both sides.
HelloCity
Well-Known Member
Imagine the PL telling their US broadcasting partners they were throwing City out of the league - the US’s most watched team.
"clear and irrefutable evidence"Clearly the hearing, with the examination and cross-examination of witnesses, is key to the outcome. That's why the more I think about it, I'm a little dubious about this alleged offer of a 6-point deduction (although I'm confident that some sort of settlement approach was made).
The PL would have to be very confident about their case, and the sort of penalty that might be imposed if so, to see a 6-point deduction as a 'generous' offer. I'd see that more as Masters potentially trying to keep the cartel onside. "Look guys, I made a decent offer but they weren't having it".
If that's the case it would be impossible for us to take any offer of a punishment without losing all credibility pre trial.
Cobwebcat
Well-Known Member
If that 6 point deduction offer is true I’m amazed City didn’t take it. If we have say a 30% chance of relegation, given that even the most slam dunk of cases has only around a 70% chance of winning, why take the chance?Let's remember that it's really only 3 substantive issues, not 115.
They'd be looking at a points deduction only if they felt our revenue was overstated, or expenses understated, to a point that we'd have failed PSR had they not been. That scenario would put us in the same sort of position as Everton.
The Mancini contract isn't enough to do that, plus there were no financial rules in place at the time as they were only introduced in 2013/14. I very much doubt Fordham would be enough to push us over as we're only talking about probably £13m a season.
So it's the Etihad contract, which we can only assume they're taking the same line as UEFA on, in that the majority wasn't paid by Etihad. But having looked at the figures, even if we're talking about Etihad etc being overstated by £60m a season, I'm dubious as to how we'd have failed the PL's profit and sustainability rules, which allow an aggregate loss of £105m over a 3-year period.
We reported an aggregate net profit of £7m over the first three years of the PL's rules. Adding back a minimum of £75m in allowable expenditure over those 3 years gives an adjusted net profit of over £80m meaning we'd have to have overstated our profit by £200m over those 3 years to have fallen foul of PSR enough to warrant a 6-point penalty.
Therefore you could potentially see the logic in the PL's offer of a 6-point deduction if they think we've significantly overstated sponsorship revenue. But we haven't done that, as CAS proved.