PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[halfcenturyup]

If the Premier League has new evidence proving that our witnesses lied at CAS, we’re in deep water.

Seriously, the PL wont have any proof that the club's witnesses lied to CAS any more than they have proof of the serious fraud allegations.

What they may have is circumstantial evidence suggesting it, but as with everything else they will have to prove it to a standard much higher than the club's counter evidence. It has been discussed on here before many times why it is possible witnesses lied at CAS, but very unlikely and very difficult to prove even if it was true.

You may just as well come out and say if the PL has proof the club filed accounts fraudulently because Mansour funded the sponsorships then the club is fucked. Because that is also possible but it is also very unlikely and very difficult to prove even if it was true.

I really don't know why you are doing this to yourself.

 

[pauls]

This is why the PL will fail. Their solicitors have clearly fucked up and haven't realised the rules back in the day were different to the ones around today. Fordham - nothing wrong at the time, Mancini - nothing wrong at the time, Etihad and any sponsorship deal - CAS trumps any IC verdict. So what does that leave them with?

Hope you're right mate,but if that's the case why would it take 12 weeks?

 

[Keith Moon]

Seriously, the PL wont have any proof that the club's witnesses lied to CAS any more than they have proof of the serious fraud allegations.

What they may have is circumstantial evidence suggesting it, but as with everything else they will have to prove it to a standard much higher than the club's counter evidence. It has been discussed on here before many times why it is possible witnesses lied at CAS, but very unlikely and very difficult to prove even if it was true.

You may just as well come out and say if the PL has proof the club filed accounts fraudulently because Mansour funded the sponsorships then the club is fucked. Because that is also possible but it is also very unlikely and very difficult to prove even if it was true.

I really don't know why you are doing this to yourself.

Do you know what we are accused of or if there is any new evidence regarding the 54 charges of Misrepresentation of Financial Information?

Do you know if the Premier League has new evidence that they either uncovered themselves or obtained from FootyLeaks, Pinto, or the EIC?

Do you know if we actually funded the sponsorships?

 

[wattle]

The Keith moon guy just never gives up with his (all “in his opinion” ) negativity. He seems determined to keep his theme in the spotlight & won’t acknowledge it’s all his supposition without any backup. It’s all “there might be” new evidence. But he won’t accept that the hacks weren’t aimed at City - we were a small part of the big picture.
Also - you are now giving it out that we’ll get done for non cooperation & will get a fine. But once again ITS ALL IN YOUR HEAD & JUST YOUR OPINION.
It’s posts like these that cause the fans to have a go at each other & if you want it to stop then give up posting things that are just supposition

Correct it’s just my opinion. That’s all anyone has because no one knows anything about the outcome of the case - including you and me. But your post just proved my point - no need whatsoever to take that over the top tone over a post that was just trying to explain why people do and say the things they do (which incidentally is something I know allot about with my line of work) and that Mr Moon probably is a decent City fan who’s just worried (probably needlessly) about the outcome. Anyway, merry Xmas :)

 

[CC1]

Correct it’s just my opinion. That’s all anyone has because no one knows anything about the outcome of the case - including you and me. But your post just proved my point - no need whatsoever to take that over the top tone over a post that was just trying to explain why people do and say the things they do (which incidentally is something I know allot about with my line of work) and that Mr Moon probably is a decent City fan who’s just worried (probably needlessly) about the outcome. Anyway, merry Xmas :)

But I don’t agree that you do know why people respond to these posts. Is that ok?

Happy New Year

 

[silva_is_gold]

Me Browsing today b4 The Meal

If posters had a day off ud have nothing to browse lol

 

[slbsn]

No, I do understand how the disclosure process works, but I’m concerned about what may have come in from the sidelines and helped the Premier League piece things together.

Of course, I also understand that new documents are irrelevant at this stage, but the last times new documents were mentioned by Pinto or his lawyer were in November 2023, February 2024, and June 2024.

They’ve had three years since CAS to uncover new evidence, and while it’s likely that the EIC got the juiciest stuff the first time around, it can’t be ruled out that there was more. DS/EIC received 3.4 terabytes out of the 17.5 terabytes.

If you understand it, if the PL has had documents from the hack (I doubt they have and probably had some concern about taking the docs from such a source) it is then obliged to share the documents with City and put its case. This will have happened well before the hearing. So, it’s all so what now. I am quite sure that if the evidence exists for the allegations to be proven, they simply don’t need any further help from Pinto. Either way, if you understand disclosure, Pinto is now irrelevant.

 

[slbsn]

A question for some of our more learned posters to answer if possible. When the outcome of the decision arrives, will there be some disclosure of the material that led to the allegations and our subsequent counter evidence? Obviously confidentiality issues will come into play, but as a layman my knowledge of the process is virtually non existent.

Yes there is likely to be fairly specific coverage of key documents in the judgment

 

[halfcenturyup]

Do you know what we are accused of or if there is any new evidence regarding the 54 charges of Misrepresentation of Financial Information?

Do you know if the Premier League has new evidence that they either uncovered themselves or obtained from FootyLeaks, Pinto, or the EIC?

Do you know if we actually funded the sponsorships?

Of course they have more evidence than UEFA had. UEFA had six or seven leaked emails that spanned four years out of the ten years the PL has looked at. The PL has also been reviewing the club's records (accounting, communication and otherwise, much more than UEFA had access to and much more, for that matter, than Pinto had access to) for more than four years. No-one in their right mind will tell you they don't have more evidence. But that isn't the point.

And once again, the PL wont have proof that Mansour funded any sponsorships. They will have circumstantial evidence which the panel will weigh against the club's counter evidence. It's possible Mansour did what is alleged, but it is very unlikely and very difficult to prove to the standard required even if he did.

None of that has anything at all to do with Pinto.

 

[Roachy]

Yes there is likely to be fairly specific coverage of key documents in the judgment

Great stuff, thanks.