PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

halfcenturyup said:
No.

Edit: Sorry that was a little abrupt. I think the allegation in respect of breaching UEFA regulations is about providing them incorrect information in bad faith, rather than failing FFP. It's not the PL's job to assess UEFA FFP violations, it's their job to provide information to UEFA.

Whataboutisms like this make us look as desperate as Harris/Magic Twat look when they refuse to accept there could be any another context around the leaked emails than their interpretation. That's why I tried to include as many of them in my original post. There are plenty of holes in the arguments of rival fans to exploit without asking what about this and what about that, imho.
Click to expand...
I get the clutching at straws point, and I would say this is more about equitable application of the rules. Rule B.15.6 (2017/18) states that clubs have to comply with "the statutes and regulations of UEFA". The regulation on "good faith" appears to be specifically directed at other Clubs and the League (both which have specific definitions, for which definition of the League did change subtly around 2013).

UEFA have resolved their case against Utd and the Premier League don't see a need for further action. I suppose what I am asking is, if it is accepted that this is reasonable, should it not also be the case for City?
 
Last edited:
HorlockofFiretopMountain said:
I get the clutching at straws point, and I would say this is more about equitable application of the rules. Rule B.15.6 (2017/18) states that clubs have to comply with "the statutes and regulations of UEFA". The regulation on "good faith" appears to be specifically directed at other Clubs and the League (both which have specific definitions, for which definition of the League did change subtly around 2013).

UEFA have resolved their case against Utd and the Premier League don't see a need for further action. I suppose what I am asking is, if it is accepted that this is reasonable, should it not also be the case for City?
Click to expand...
Not if the Premier League are saying the Information we supplied to to them which they subsequently passed on to UEFA was misrepresented.
 
slbsn said:
These decisions are fine balances. Barristers look at probabilities and litigation risk. Sometimes in the final days before a hearing, they obsess about the weaknesses/weak spots of the case/arguments and prefer a client to settle - even more so when their financial risk is insulated by a nice, non refundable brief fee!

The skeleton arguments (written openings) that they will have received in the week before the hearing also crystalises concerns and case understanding giving the parties a clearer view of the direction the opposing side will take.

So clients always need to be mindful of taking the barrister's view but setting it against their own educated view and commercial reality. In short, sometimes clients hear the barrister but still don't or can't agree a settlement.

In short, City's owners may well have accepted Counsel's general view but been unable to get to a satisfactory settlement. Happens in almost every case that gets to a trial.
Click to expand...

It's really hard to judge in this case, because whilst it's playing out behind closed doors there's immense public scrutiny. Any settlement is a sign of weakness from the PL and an admission of guilt from City. And without knowing what that was it's hard to make a true judgement. There could be a number of commercial reasons why City couldn't rather than wouldn't accept a settlement - in terms of an admission of guilt. And you'd expect the PL, aware of the optics, would have offered something that had a substantial impact on our chances of success this season.

There doesn't appear to be much difference with what's on the table here in terms of charges, and what UEFA levelled at us. And it's always positive to have case law, or in this instance, the CAS verdict, to quote and utilise as part of our defence this time around. I don't believe there's anything additional the PL have other than the hacked emails, although I could be wrong.

If you're turning up to an independent panel with the same accusations, even if rules and legislation differ, it's helpful as I said to point to the CAS verdict and provide their opinion on inflated sponsorships/sources of income etc.

I just cannot see the club settling regardless of what was on the table, when the public perception is that we're guilty. That might not change even with a "win" at the independent panel in terms of your social media content from rival fans, but it will have to from the media and anyone employed to comment or they open themselves to a legal battle of their own.
 
I am wondering if the verdict of our other case against the PL will have some bearing on the 115 attitudes of both parties.
By that I mean the non cooperation charges may be seen as justified because some PL leakage together with its obvious "fishing" reasoning.

Maybe if a fair/unfair assessment comes from the other appeal happens it may affect our combined agreement/non agreement to a settlement?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.