PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Keeper!]

I think he would have to do the consultancy work tho

Impossible to prove he did not.

 

[halfcenturyup]

If you are saying did we set a trap for the hunter knowing that if they proceed they’ll be trapped with the outcome decided by an independent commission, then yes I do.

If Masters had been able to consider the long term implications he wouldn’t have stage managed the attack, 115 & created a winner takes all. It came across as playing to the crowd (cartel) & now he’s fucked. The board should have controlled the situation though, they aren’t blameless so 4 years of investigations would have meant we were discussed & they should have had the foresight to see how it could play out.

Agree with all that.

 

[Blue Mist]

The PL never had any intention of speaking to Mancini. The motive is damaging City’s reputation. They have no interest in justice. It has been a sham from the start.

I totally agree and I thought I made that point, clearly I didn't. The reason it has taken so long and the reason it's 115/130 charges is to damage City.

 

[Coatigan]

When we are found not guilty , those discussions will HAVE to stop, otherwise the club will have no other choice but to take legal action.

2017 called, wants its post back.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Going on the attack with the contrived 115 charges narrative was a huge blunder by the PL. The Comms has been a disaster. Every leak, every briefing, every dirty trick, has undermined their own case. It will not play well with the Panel just as it failed with the CAS judges. People don’t like being taken for idiots.

It has not only undermined their case, it has increased the jeopardy to them involved with a failure to prove the most serious allegations.

Stupid really and, as I maintain, clever of the club to manoeuvre them into this situation. Again. As at CAS.

 

[Keeper!]

2017 called, wants its post back.

Agreed but that was down to our club and one worry I have in the back of my mind about this latest action and if our evidence is irrefutable.

But if we are found not guilty, the innuendo has to stop.

 

[Coatigan]

Agreed but that was down to our club and one worry I have in the back of my mind about this latest action and if our evidence is irrefutable.

But if we are found not guilty, the innuendo has to stop.

Or what?

I think that is naive. It might slowly fizzle out to a lower level, but won't stop.

But if we are hopefully cleared, I won't really care about the innuendo. I already don’t.

 

[Sheikh rattle and roll]

@Chris in London Mancini has previously stated that he has had no contact with the PL.
This is what I find totally amazing. Whether it is a police investigation or an internal disciplinary inquiry at Tescos, you would always look to speak to the main witness. Obviously they could lie or even refuse to speak to you but, the witness just might give you all the evidence you require.
If the PL had asked Mancini and he backed up everything they are alleging we would not now be pissing about it London.
It shows how amateurish this witch hunt really is and who is driving it.
For the record Mancini stated everything was above board and that he would attend any hearing to give evidence. Again this shows that the investigation was deliberately stretched out to cause maximum damage to City, it has no integrity.

City should then call him as a witness for the defence job done

 

[WRicko]

The PL may have asked the club for information from AJ and Mancini but City said they were unable to provide it. The PL can't just ask third parties for information directly, as I understand it, they can only ask City to provide it "when able to do so". Which is the biggest problem they have with all the allegations I think and, I would imagine, the main element of their non-cooperation allegation.

Surely they can ask who they want they just cannot demand but even if the rules say you ask the club that doesn’t stop them asking the other people. And surly the rules cannot make the club provide stuff from third parties they have no control over

Do you think the rules prohibit them asking Mancini directly

 

[halfcenturyup]

I still don’t know why you can’t ask a 3rd party a question. They aren’t obligated to answer but I see no problem in asking Mancini if he’d be happy to explain what his consultancy role was in the UAE. If he says no it’s a different matter but not approach is wrong.

These are the latest rules around power of inquiry and provision of information:



And the definitions of Manager / Official, just for the record:



Seems to me that says that the PL's power of inquiry is only to the current manager and the current officials, and the information that they can provide. And that they can ask for information from anyone else where the club is "able to do so". Many ways to say you aren't able to do so, I would imagine, and then miraculously turn up with it at the panel.

Edit: I may be wrong. It has been known occasionally :)