PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Exsanguinate?

@gordondaviesmoustache to the thread.

Fuck knows mate.

 

[Norbiton]

Yes, I think that is what he is talking about.

Was discussed a while ago. Jordan is wrong that the evidence given by the witnesses at CAS was inconsistent. It was thoroughly consistent and convincing. Cogent is the word, I think.

As you say, he is referring to the Harris/Magic Twat theory that Pearce "unequivocally" denied at CAS that he had ever "arranged" any payments to be made to Etihad. But then some of the newly leaked emails after CAS, in 2022, seemed to show him "arranging" payments to and from Etihad. Their hope is that that is evidence of Pearce perjuring himself but, as always, it isn't that simple. Pearce is a smart guy. I doubt he will have any problem explaining why "arranging" payments to Etihad isn't the same as "arranging" payments to and from Etihad :)

Context is everything.

Wasn't that later email from Pearce from the ADEC rather than from City or was I imagining that? So he might argue that his answers to CAS were regarding his role with City rather than with the Abu Dhabi government? Sheer know nowt speculation of course.

 

[Goatmeal]

The consensus from both seemed to be to settle out of court
I feel the same but are we prepared to accept another pinch?
It would mean we can’t try to get damages out of the PL.
Personally, I would prefer us to go for the throat and dug up the dirt from the red tops.
Let the press print who was truly behind this case.

 

[Chris in London]

There was one e-mail that Der Spiegel pulled out of their arse a couple of weeks after the CAS verdict didn’t go their way. They claim it proved that Simon Pearce lied on oath but from memory it was just in a similar vein to the e-mails that City successfully defended against at CAS. As such, @petrusha - who is a lot more qualified than me at assessing these things - dismissed it at the time as more re-hashed bollocks. And looking at it logically, if it truly was a smoking gun then why the fuck didn’t UEFA open a new investigation off the back of it? If Jordan is pinning his hopes on that then he’s a desperate fucker IMO.

We all know what the witnesses (all of them, not just Simon Pearce) said at CAS.

What we don't know is what the witnesses have said since.

But what's important to understand is that the club does. These cases are not ambushes, and they are not intended or permitted to be ambushes. If there is evidence showing that Simon Pearce or anyone else was lying at CAS, or might have been lying, by this stage of the proceedings that will not be a surprise to anyone. It will have been part of the PL's case for months if not years.

In other words, CIty will have known what the PL rely on - whether or not it is more emails from Der Spiegel = for months if not years. You go into this kind of hearing with your cards, in terms of the evidence you are relying on, already on the table lying face up. Of course, it may be something else entirely, for instance evidence that may have emerged during the disclosure process, or something else the PL have found (like a whistleblower). Either way, we can say for sure that the PL will have disclosed some time ago the evidence they intend to rely on to discredit MCFC's witnesses, and MCFC know exactly what it is that is being said against them and their witnesses.

So knowing the scale of the task they face, what can we read into the reported offer to settle for a small points deduction? IF - and it's a bit If - there really was an offer to settle for 6 points (or whatever it was) that makes me think three things.

First, IF the reality was that senior MCFC officials did lie at CAS, given that they have now seen the detail of the case against us I would be gobsmacked that the club did not take the deal. That is because the reported offer would have got the club off a particularly nasty hook at relatively modest cost, and would have been covered by a non-disclosure agreement so that the details did not enter the public domain. Such a settlement would plausibly allow the club to say 'we're not guilty but settling this for points we can win back through the season was the sensible thing to do rather than spend half the season with this hanging over us.'

Secondly, why would the PL make such an offer? Again, there are a number of reasons, but to make an offer to settle on the basis of such a lenient sanction (lenient in the context of the allegations) is a pretty clear pointer that someone somewhere along the line has spotted some pretty major weaknesses in the PL's own case. Don't get me wrong - cases with weaknesses can still succeed, and even strong cases can come apart in the courtroom - but experienced advocates can usually spot the winners from a fair distance out.

Likewise, even experienced advocates can get cold feet, but the reported offer struck me as being an attempt by the PL to get something over the line rather than face complete humiliation. I have told myself again and again to try to avoid looking at this through blue-tinted glasses, but each time I look at this I come back to a mental image of the CPS offering Fred and Rose West 6 months each for ABH.

Thirdly, disputes like this can only be resolved in two ways: one, you agree it with the other side, two, you let the panel make the decision. There are a number of reasons why we might not have accepted a settlement offer, the most probable - by far - is that the club thinks it will achieve a better outcome by going to trial. Which means that the club either thinks a non sporting sanction is likely even if City lose on the most serious charges - which I personally don't see happening in a month of Sundays - or they think the chances are that MCFC will be exonerated on everything that might lead to a sporting sanction.

Which is most of it bar the non-co-operation charge in my view.

I stress that the assumption that the PL made us an offer that, if the charges prove to be true, would be seen as ridiculously low is doing a lot of heavy lifting in the above. However if the account of that offer is in its essentials correct, to my mind that demonstrates a highly confident MCFC and a pretty desperate PL.

IF, I repeat, that offer was made.

 

[Xhavenjoe]

Exsanguinate?

@gordondaviesmoustache to the thread.

I think you'll have to contact Suzi Dent.
This is high level

 

[Cobwebcat]

Yes, generally happy. Not possible to deal with all his points in such a forum, on his show, with a host and a break coming up. I am only able to choose which points to deal with and how.

Do you debate by simply talking over someone?

It’s almost an impossible task with Simon. He has reverted all the way back to his initial beliefs that, more recently, he admitted were wrong.

It’s like he read the CAS judgement then forgot the lot three weeks later. I know it’s a show but still….

 

[gocity]

I think you'll have to contact Suzi Dent.
This is high level

exsanguinate drain (a person animal or organ) of blood

 

[Xhavenjoe]

exsanguinate drain (a person animal or organ) of blood

Don't like the sound of that

 

[GortonBlue62]

I think you'll have to contact Suzi Dent.
This is high level

Surely Suzi is too old to be exsanguinating?

 

[halfcenturyup]

Yes, generally happy. Not possible to deal with all his points in such a forum, on his show, with a host and a break coming up. I am only able to choose which points to deal with and how.

Do you debate by simply talking over someone?

What happened to that new long-form podcast from Talksport. That was interesting. Learned a few things. Are you going on again?