PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[pudge]

Either outcome is horrendous for the Premier League so every cloud and all that

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

Although it is officially stated that no communications have been had at government level, I can assure you that there has.
All depends on if the yanks have put more pressure to secure their 'investments' than the UAE have.
But this will be a political manoeuvre and not a legal one.
All this tribunal bollocks is just that. In my humble one.

Of course it has been political. The current and previous Government know exactly what Masters and his pals have been up to. They also know that City are the only club supporting the new Regulator.

 

[Gordyola]

When I cancelled the dd it was a deputy manager who said they were able to set it up again hope you are right tho cheers

must be why he is a deputy he’s wrong

Cancelling a Direct Debit

Welcome to the home of Direct Debit, the UK's favourite way to make payments automatically.

www.directdebit.co.uk

my

 

[nmc]

If the PL don’t land any of the major allegations it will be a disaster for them. They have taken four years and accused all our senior people of false accounting. Non-co operation is not a win for them under any circumstances.

A failure to land the major charges will see the senior figures at the EPL out en masse. No way can they survive. They’ve staked everything.

 

[Bez]

The press often say we will be found guilty of non cooperation. As with all their reports, they are guessing. They just don't know. If we gave the PL everything they were entitled to receive in good time I cannot see the IC finding us guilty of non cooperation. City will have had advice about which requests to comply with. The press will keep banging this drum for clicks from the morons, but they are guessing.

 

[Odd socks]

A fine for not complying is nuts, if I didn't do the crime and answered no comment when questioned by the plot then found not guilty in court I wouldn't expect a fine for saying nothing.
For me it's either guilty or not, punish if there's wrong doing but if not let's get our club and players cleared.

 

[Stoned Rose]

As I say, the decisions will have been politically made. This level of conflict in a worldwide entertainment behemoth brand is too much of a destabilising risk.
Even for the plaintive. A win for them is still going to be highly damaging. And these American investors are not usually interested in a long term ROI.
They (red top owners) and us, also don't know what City will do if the nuclear button is pressed.
Totally Innocent or filthy guilty don't work for any investor who wants to make money from the game.

Go on I’ll humour you.

How would a win for the PL damage them?

And what would this “nuclear button” consist of?

 

[Stoned Rose]

The press often say we will be found guilty of non cooperation. As with all their reports, they are guessing. They just don't know. If we gave the PL everything they were entitled to receive in good time I cannot see the IC finding us guilty of non cooperation. City will have had advice about which requests to comply with. The press will keep banging this drum for clicks from the morons, but they are guessing.

This non cooperation element baffles me.

If we have genuinely not provided such and such a document, or spreadsheet or witness statement, how would they be able to prove the alleged breach that relates to?
Remember the emphasis is on them to prove not us to disprove.

I get that an adverse inference could be drawn but that doesn’t necessarily amount to proof.

Also, would there be some “cut off point” for not cooperating on whatever issue? So for eg the PL say we need such and such a document by 1st May and we don’t provide it, but provide it a week later, would that still be non cooperation even though we have factually provided the document?

Would there be any criteria where not providing something is actually ok?

 

[BamberBridgeBlue]

Regarding non-cooperation. Like everyone I’m just putting out my understanding of events. In particular with UEFA we were cooperating fully until everything we submitted ended up being leaked? Can’t see that applying to The Premier League. There’s documents you have to submit and we no doubt submitted them all. Additional info is surely by request.

 

[Chris in London]

I don't think they can prove that, but the club's defence won't just be looking at the P7 and P8 wording. They will have to show why the services were separate, fulfilled and perfectly normal from a personal and professional point of view. I am sure they can.

No they won’t. The PL have to show the services outlined in the Al Jazira contract, were NOT separate, and were NOT perfectly normal.

They have to show, in other words, that the contract was a sham.

Have they asked Al Jazira? Have they even asked Mancini? You can’t prove a contract is a sham unless both parties intend it should not be binding.

I’m not aware they have evidence that either didn’t intend to be bound by those terms, let alone both.