PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

petrusha said:
When you say "heard ... from someone at Anfield", would I be correct in presuming that this means he was told by from someone in the City end at the recent Liverpool away game, and you're not using "someone at Anfield" as shorthand for someone within Liverpool, FC? It would be a valuable clarification.

As for the veracity of the information, the answer is that, while the Panel might have a strong idea even before closing submissions of how they'll decide on some matters that seem pretty clear cut, no one else knows. That includes the respective parties and their professional advisers. As we've discussed in this thread before, lawyers quite often form an idea of whether or not a court or arbitration case has generally gone well for them, but every litigator I've known has stories about such impressions turning out to have been completely incorrect.

Trying to take the information at face value, the only way I see that there could be a kernel of truth in it would be that it's a reflection of the PL's view of the case and not that of the Panel itself. In other words, I suppose it's possible that the PL could, having heard City's rebuttal evidence, have declined to pursue over 50 of the original charges but are pushing for a 40 point deduction with respect to the rest and they may or may not persuade the Panel to impose such a sanction. I'm inclined to be sceptical, though.
Click to expand...
Thanks Peter. Apologies if I wasn't clear about who this was and which club they're affiliated to. It wasn't someone from the Liverpool side. I've pm'ed you the name.
 
Last edited:
petrusha said:
When you say "heard ... from someone at Anfield", would I be correct in presuming that this means he was told by from someone in the City end at the recent Liverpool away game, and you're not using "someone at Anfield" as shorthand for someone within Liverpool, FC? It would be a valuable clarification.

As for the veracity of the information, the answer is that, while the Panel might have a strong idea even before closing submissions of how they'll decide on some matters that seem pretty clear cut, no one else knows. That includes the respective parties and their professional advisers. As we've discussed in this thread before, lawyers quite often form an idea of whether or not a court or arbitration case has generally gone well for them, but every litigator I've known has stories about such impressions turning out to have been completely incorrect.

Trying to take the information at face value, the only way I see that there could be a kernel of truth in it would be that it's a reflection of the PL's view of the case and not that of the Panel itself. In other words, I suppose it's possible that the PL could, having heard City's rebuttal evidence, have declined to pursue over 50 of the original charges but are pushing for a 40 point deduction with respect to the rest and they may or may not persuade the Panel to impose such a sanction. I'm inclined to be sceptical, though.
Click to expand...

What he said :)
 
halfcenturyup said:
Actually, replying to myself I know, but I suppose it is possible that that is what the PL is asking for in it's closing statement.

But looking at it logically, that would mean many things about what the PL think was proven and what was dropped. So many things that I don't have the strength right now. But I could put a case for the PL asking for a 40 point deduction if the most serious allegations weren't proven and some of the less serious ones were. Aim high, settle less, I suppose.

Anyway, I still think it's probably bollocks.
Click to expand...
The PL cant request a punishment can they , i thought the punishment was decided by the panel within set guidelines although i may be wrong.
 
mancboy said:
The PL cant request a punishment can they , i thought the punishment was decided by the panel within set guidelines although i may be wrong.
Click to expand...

There are no set guidelines. Remember the first Everton case? The PL suggested a sanction and the panel ignored it, but then came up with the same sanction on a different basis (so they said .....).
 
M18CTID said:
Sorry to put a dampener on things this morning after getting back to winning ways but just thought I’d share this. One of our lot was telling me last night that he heard on Sunday from someone at Anfield that 50-odd charges have fallen away but they’re going to find against us on some of the others, and we’re getting a 40 point deduction. Now if this “someone” was a random bloke, then obviously I wouldn’t even be giving it the time of day, let alone posting it on here. However, we all know or have at least heard of this “someone” - who I won’t name but I’m sure some will be able to work out who it is - and he told my mate that he’d heard this from a contact “high up at the club”.

Anyway, this mate who heard this said he naturally wasn’t in the best of moods as the second half kicked off! However, he has plenty of other contacts in the media and at the club. One of his media contacts is someone who’s been his mate for the past 30-odd years and again is someone we all know as he errr, cough cough, posts on here ;) So he asked him if he’d heard anything about this so-called 40 point deduction. The answer he got back was along the lines of “That’s bollocks as they’ve not even done the summing up yet!”. This is a fair point as while I think both sides might have an inkling of how things are going at this stage, if the summing up hasn’t even started (or is just starting going off the pics that have been posted on here), let alone the panel then sitting down and spending months deliberating, I can’t see how anyone would know at this point in time what our punishment - if there is to be any - would be.

Like I say, sorry for the seemingly negative post but I think it’s only fair that info from sources should be shared regardless of whether it’s positive or negative.
Click to expand...
Hilarious, scouse humour at its best…
 
M18CTID said:
Sorry to put a dampener on things this morning after getting back to winning ways but just thought I’d share this. One of our lot was telling me last night that he heard on Sunday from someone at Anfield that 50-odd charges have fallen away but they’re going to find against us on some of the others, and we’re getting a 40 point deduction. Now if this “someone” was a random bloke, then obviously I wouldn’t even be giving it the time of day, let alone posting it on here. However, we all know or have at least heard of this “someone” - who I won’t name but I’m sure some will be able to work out who it is - and he told my mate that he’d heard this from a contact “high up at the club”.

Anyway, this mate who heard this said he naturally wasn’t in the best of moods as the second half kicked off! However, he has plenty of other contacts in the media and at the club. One of his media contacts is someone who’s been his mate for the past 30-odd years and again is someone we all know as he errr, cough cough, posts on here ;) So he asked him if he’d heard anything about this so-called 40 point deduction. The answer he got back was along the lines of “That’s bollocks as they’ve not even done the summing up yet!”. This is a fair point as while I think both sides might have an inkling of how things are going at this stage, if the summing up hasn’t even started (or is just starting going off the pics that have been posted on here), let alone the panel then sitting down and spending months deliberating, I can’t see how anyone would know at this point in time what our punishment - if there is to be any - would be.

Like I say, sorry for the seemingly negative post but I think it’s only fair that info from sources should be shared regardless of whether it’s positive or negative.
Click to expand...
I realise this may be a whoosh moment but, people need to stop sharing this stuff they heard from a bloke in a pub, stood next to them at a game, or from Fuckwitbook.

Use some critical thinking skills. The panel are just starting to hear closing arguments. No judgements have been made. No penalties decided. I doubt any charges have been dropped although most are weak and the Etihad stuff has been debunked at CAS.

Yes, we shouldn't be afraid to share negative stuff but only if they're well-sourced, not the product of Nick Harris's fertile and tortured imagination.

The outcome will be delivered when it's delivered. Let's all chill until then.
 
mancboy said:
You only have to look at the last case against the PL where both sides were claiming victory despite the findings and also how would that even work they couldnt prove 50 charges but could prove the other 65, if they had summary evidence that was better for 65 of the charges than the other 50 it would make no sense to pursue the other 50 in the first place.
Click to expand...
I can’t see how they can find one but not multiples, example non co operation, we have either cooperated or not, so if we have that’s all them dropped, if we haven’t then they are all upheld. Same with the Mancini stuff is either one or the other. Anyway they’ve not even done the closing arguments and again we are allowed to appeal so what happens if they deduct us 40 points we get relegated but win the appeal, we come back into the premier league and someone else goes down or they wait for the appeal to be heard which clud go to the start of next season, so then if we start on a minus 40 shouldn’t the team that got relegated this season have cause to make an appeal they shouldn’t have gone down, it’s a complete shit show.
 
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.