I simply couldn't say.PB: I am very appreciative of your informed comments and positive outlook on this situation. I, also, remain optimistic about the outcome. I just wonder if, should the judgement go City’s way, that City may try to turn the tables and go for punitive damages against certain actors? Sorry if this has already been covered.
I doubt that deducting 6 points from each of the witch-hunt leading cartel clubs would be considered adequate punishment from our perspective.Strange that some are saying why didn’t we take the 6 point deduction ( if the rumours are true of a settlement)
all very strange this 6 point business, certainly not enough to relegate us, infact it would hardly impact our season,recoverable over a two week period if other results went our way, ok it may have been 10 points if dished out at a hearing but still 10 is recoverableStrange that some are saying why didn’t we take the 6 point deduction ( if the rumours are true of a settlement) why would we want to take a settlement when we could possibly clear ourselves of everything,the settlement would only have the media narrative of we cheated and would continue to whip knuckle draggers up into a frenzy ..Yes you could say that would happen if we are cleared well I would rather be cleared and laugh at the cnuts than know we took a settlement meaning they will definitely say are guilty..
Most cases don't have the political issue the PL has here - optically difficult for them to settle without City accepting wrongdoing which City are naturally reluctant to do. The parties really should have found a way to settle before the charges but likely too late now.
Where has this 6 point thing come from.all very strange this 6 point business, certainly not enough to relegate us, infact it would hardly impact our season,recoverable over a two week period if other results went our way, ok it may have been 10 points if dished out at a hearing but still 10 is recoverable
There was a program the other day where a an actual court case was actually re run with word for word from the transcript re run in front of two juries.I couldn't understand your response at first but think I've got it now.
There's a big difference in doing something that's deliberately deceptive and doing something you believe you have good grounds for. It's the difference between acting in bad faith and good faith.
For example, we proved to the comfortable satisfaction of the CAS panel that the Etihad sponsorship wasn't disguised equity investment, as we presented evidence that it had come from a source other than ADUG. So unless the PL has an email or other evidence that specifically contradicts that testimony, they will struggle to prove it. If they do have cogent evidence that there was a conspiracy to lie and mislead the panel, then we would be in serious trouble.
Same for Fordham. We didn't do that to hide expenses but to bring in revenue. I assume we took good legal and financial advice about that, and that we didn't act in deliberate bad faith. But the IC could potentially still find us in breach of something, but not that we acted deceptively.
Maybe a 10 point reduction is recoverable but, I expect plenty more bullshit rumors over and do not believe this one, can you imagine the Media frenzy over a 10 point reduction, the red Cartel would go into meltdown and would appeal the decision in heartbeat, and if the rules didn't allow them to appeal, they would have the rules changed.all very strange this 6 point business, certainly not enough to relegate us, infact it would hardly impact our season,recoverable over a two week period if other results went our way, ok it may have been 10 points if dished out at a hearing but still 10 is recoverable
if you go back on here youl find it, PB mentioned it, you need to make your own mind up about it but PB is a very credible poster infact one of the most knowledgeable on hereWhere has this 6 point thing come from.
Is it reliable?.
Or more bullshit
I'd agree with that. The only contrary point is that we did prove, to the comfortable satisfaction of the panel, that the additional payment of the Etihad sponsorship didn't come from ADUG, UEFA couldn't prove otherwise.There was a program the other day where a an actual court case was actually re run with word for word from the transcript re run in front of two juries.
The two juries can to different conclusions.
My point is that even if the evidence is exactly the same different panels won’t necessarily reach the same decision then you have to factor in the different jurisdictions namely the PL rulebook and UEFas then CAS operates under Swiss Law and the PL under English Law
One final point is that surely it wasn’t that City proved to a comfortable satisfaction it was surely the fact that UEFa didn’t