halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 12,444
I basically agree with all of that. Just one or two things to add.
First, I'd be very disappointed if City turn out actually to have done what's alleged, at least as regards any offence that, if made out, would be serious enough to entail a potential points deduction. I think it should have been easy enough for the club's execs to operate within the rules and still achieve their objectives.
Second, the PL will surely have more than the emails given the length of their investigation as well as the powers they had to demand documents and information. We have to assume they'll have uncovered during that process further pieces of evidence that they regard as bolstering the case against the club.
It's hard to imagine what they could realistically have that takes them to the necessary standard of proof, especially having regard to the requirement - much discussed some time back on this thread - for cogency. Nonetheless, the safer assumption is that they'll have something.
Third, as you say, we're no better informed now about the detail of the parties' arguments than we were in February 2023, although that hasn't stopped discussion of and speculation over that topic helping to nudge this thread beyond 75,000 posts. To be fair, there are some very high-quality contributions in here among all the ones that don't really add much. IMO, the best contributions on this thread offer the best analysis of the case available more or less anywhere.
Nonetheless, the essential dichotomy that I discussed at the outset still remains. City's confidence about having irrefutable evidence and the entirely reasonable assumption that the PL wouldn't have accused the club in this way without being confident of having a strong case are mutually exclusive. Something doesn't add up.
We know what we want and hope it to be. Nonetheless, it won't be confirmed until the matter is determined and we have the reasoning. But someone is surely going to emerge looking stupid.
BREAKING:
The Lawyer magazine cancelled my subscription some time back in response to my living in Mordor, but they still send digests, more than once a day, summarising legal news. I've just received this morning's, which is headed as follows from the publication's Litigation Tracker: The Hearing - The end is in sight for Manchester City case
That's followed by this text: The trial of the Premier League’s 115 charges against Manchester City is due to wrap up in December, but the length and complexity of the case means that a decision is unlikely to be published for several months.
So, looks like the hearing is still ongoing. However, I can't break the paywall, even using archive.ph.
If anyone has access, please let us know what the rest of the piece says. Or, in case anyone is better at accessing what's meant to be subscription-only content than I am, the link is here: https://www.thelawyer.com/the-hearing-the-end-is-in-sight-for-manchester-city-case/
I tried to be brief :)
Great to hear from you, as always. Hope you are OK over there.