PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

halfcenturyup said:
On the one hand, I understand the point of view that the PL must have more evidence than the few emails that were available at CAS. For example, they have presumably had access to all relevant email records and all relevant accounting records which may well have raised considerably more questions. I think it's undeniable they will have more information on which to build their case.

On the other hand, I ask myself exactly what sufficiently cogent evidence they could possibly have that proves on the balance of probabilities that, for example, Mansour provided money to Etihad to pay their sponsorship. There is nothing in the club's accounting or other records that could prove that to the required standard, all the evidence they would need is at third parties. And there has been no indication at all of a third-party whistle-blower or incriminating supporting evidence from third parties.

So, as at CAS, it's most likely a question of balancing circumstantial evidence (things said in emails, things said in presentations, etc) against witness testimony and accounting evidence from the third parties.

I was struggling to see how the PL can clear that hurdle 18 months ago, and I am still struggling.
Click to expand...
I must point out that Keeper did not quote me in full - I said that I would be not only astonished but delighted if the PL's evidence was as flimsy as newspaper articles, questions in pressers and jokes by rival players and managers. This would mean we really had no case to answer. The point being that Blues don't need to get upset over such nonsense because it cannot affect the case at all.

What will affect the case is hard evidence. Our evidence will, I suspect, be based on our audited accounts and statements from the personalities involved in matters relating to club revenue. I don't know what evidence the PL has but it may involve some emails hacked/stolen/leaked, or, as UEFA's at CAS, only copies published by the likes of Der Spiegel, which appear to suggest something "irregular". The judgement may boil down to which evidence seems more credible -theirs or ours.

Without any knowledge of the evidence I feel that our case is very strong. I am, of course, beginning with the assumption that we have done nothing wrong. CAS found exactly that and found only that had we cooperated fully earlier CAS need never have been involved. Our accounts were full and complete, it was impossible not to accept the evidence provided by all those involved and we provided a credible account of events which had been interpreted in a sinister light by the emails presented by UEFA. So the PL seems to have to show clear evidence which undermines the credibility of our accounts, shows strong evidence that our witnesses are not credible and that some of their testimony is inaccurate and untruthful. As has been said many times, that is one hell of a task.
 
Micky Blue said:
With the sacked in the morning chant I don’t have an issue.
Everyone does it and Peps reaction was great.

However, when the subject matter joked about will put people’s jobs at risk and potentially put our clubs future at risk I’m not too happy.
Especially coming from the manager of a club which has pushed for these charges and used their former players, managers and fans in the media to portray our club as all that is evil within football. To me It doesn’t feel like a joke it feels more sinister than that.

But look that’s just my view and I’m just sick of the constant 115 allegations. So maybe I need thicker skin and a sense of humour.
Click to expand...
Sounds like
 
travelman said:
Not sure you are right with that. I think if we are found guilty we will be forced through the trap door with no way back. We will effectively be like Newcastle.
Click to expand...

If that happens and that's a big if, football will die in this country because even if the baying mob of opposing fans and media so desperately want that they will never ever really trust the process again.

When the rags win the title twice on the trot murmurings of cabal will kill the product IMHO.
 
Last edited:
The Light Was Yellow Sir said:
To paraphrase Jimmy Somerville, it’s not necessarily the case that the PL have some mountain of hitherto unseen evidence or, indeed, any real evidence at all.
If they do, then City’s legal team are unfit for the job, as they would have undoubtedly recommended a settlement of some sort.
As with many ‘trials’ the ‘prosecution’ are often unwilling or, indeed, unable to stop the prosecution.
Better for Masters and the PL management (politically of not financially at least) to try and fail rather than to throw the towel in and ‘let City off’ by saying the evidence doesn’t now stack up.

To be fair, city being largely exonerated MIGHT suit the PL as well as it can then be put to bed once and for all.
Of course, should city prevail and the PL then announce they’ll appeal, that knocks that theory into a cocked hat….
Click to expand...
Plenty of absurd legal battles have gone to the bitter end with little evidence. To give an example looking at the APT case documents the PL span it out as much as possible. At one point there was a dispute about what constituted fair market value for one of the sponsorships. The PL refused to let City see the rationale for their valuation(including the data anaysis from Nielsen) despite repeated requests. City then sent the PL their alternative proposal with its own rationale. The PL were slow to reply but eventually asked our lawyers 96 different questions asking for City's reasoning for their figure. At the end of that case the Judges ruled that some of the PL's actions had been "unreasonable." That is just polite legalese. The PL behaved maliciously and in bad faith all the way through. I am sure the same is true in the 115 case.
 
Last edited:
bobbyowenquiff said:
Plenty of absurd legal battles have gone to the bitter end with little evidence. To give an example looking at the APT case documents the PL span it out as much as possible. At one point there was a dispute about what constituted fair market value for one of the sponsorships. The PL refused to let City see the rationale for their valuation(including the data anaysis from Nielsen) despite repeated requests. City then sent the PL their alternative proposal with its own rationale. The PL were slow to reply but eventually asked our lawyers 96 different questions asking for City's reasoning for their figure. At the end of that case the Judges ruled that some of the PL's actions had been "unreasonable." That is just polite legalese. The PL behaved maliciously and in bad faith all the way through. I am sure the same is true in the 115 case.
Click to expand...
Jarndyce v Jarndyce.
 
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.