Well, if we’re innocent, we have nothing to fear. But nobody on this thread knows that for sure, so if we’re speculating about how this will end, we also have to consider what could go wrong if Perce & co have been a bit more creative than what is allowed.1. We do know with near certainty - neither party has guided the media away from explanations in the media. It’s the CAS allegations re run plus Fordham, Mancini etc and a dollop of non coop.
2. The threat to City is if they have actually carried out the alleged wholesale fraud and concealment. Btw evidence isn’t “uncovered” - they just got given it in disclosure
3. Nobody needs the Pinto docs any more. The damage was done years ago. Now the authorities have due cause to ask questions directly and require disclosure
Last reply
If you take a step back then one sequence of charges is virtually impossible to disprove and that's the good/bad faith. It stands to reason a set of rules that were written/rewritten and amended every time time they failed the primary purpose of stopping city and latterly Newcastle from joining chumps league on a regular basis to the deferment of the usual red shite.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.
Good points. I actually agree with you about the outcome, don't think they can prove Misrepresentation of Financial Information, they might win Fordham and we’ll get done for Non-Cooperation.1) We know what we're accused of but not necessarily the detail behind the allegations. But it's not hard to work those out. They all must relate to information published by Der Spiegel, so that's Etihad/Etisalat, Fordham and Mancini's Al Jazira contract. Neither UEFA nor the PL can legally go on a 'fishing expedition'; they have to have specific grounds where they believe breaches may have occurred and can only request documents relating to those areas.
2) Of course it's possible the PL has evidence that UEFA/CAS didn't have but given the weight of evidence presented by us at CAS, and the lack of any cogent evidence uncovered by UEFA, I'd suggest it's highly unlikely.
If the PL had convincing new evidence proving everyone knowingly lied at CAS, we'd almost certainly have settled before the hearing.
3) If Pinto had better evidence than the seven emails then UEFA would have had it years ago. The emails were basically innuendo and completely shorn of context. And I'm not sure this case is about strength of evidence anyway, but more an attempt to blacken our reputation.
Pinto can claim what he likes but his best shot was those seven emails, two of which had to be spliced together to make them look worse than they were. And there's plenty of people claiming to be in the know telling us they know the outcome of the Independent Commission hearing even before it finished. So I'd treat peoples'' claims with great suspicion.
if they was to win on the fordham stuff would they be a points deduction or fine or bothGood points. I actually agree with you about the outcome, don't think they can prove Misrepresentation of Financial Information, they might win Fordham and we’ll get done for Non-Cooperation.
Or MagicHat.Has to be Nick.He should change his user name to Keith Loon
if they was to win on the fordham stuff would they be a points deduction or fine or both
There is no suggestion of concealment re Fordham as far as I am aware. Isn’t it likely to be time barred?1) We know what we're accused of but not necessarily the detail behind the allegations. But it's not hard to work those out. They all must relate to information published by Der Spiegel, so that's Etihad/Etisalat, Fordham and Mancini's Al Jazira contract. Neither UEFA nor the PL can legally go on a 'fishing expedition'; they have to have specific grounds where they believe breaches may have occurred and can only request documents relating to those areas.
2) Of course it's possible the PL has evidence that UEFA/CAS didn't have but given the weight of evidence presented by us at CAS, and the lack of any cogent evidence uncovered by UEFA, I'd suggest it's highly unlikely.
If the PL had convincing new evidence proving everyone knowingly lied at CAS, we'd almost certainly have settled before the hearing.
3) If Pinto had better evidence than the seven emails then UEFA would have had it years ago. The emails were basically innuendo and completely shorn of context. And I'm not sure this case is about strength of evidence anyway, but more an attempt to blacken our reputation.
Pinto can claim what he likes but his best shot was those seven emails, two of which had to be spliced together to make them look worse than they were. And there's plenty of people claiming to be in the know telling us they know the outcome of the Independent Commission hearing even before it finished. So I'd treat peoples'' claims with great suspicion.
Give it a rest for all our sakesNo, 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.
There is no suggestion of concealment re Fordham as far as I am aware. Isn’t it likely to be time barred?
You really should not be giving credence to spurious claims from Pinto. As both myself and Stefan have pointed out, he would not have saved the best till last and anything he has produced is by definition less cogent than stuff which was rejected at CAS.But it’s not certain. These are my points—can you please tell me where I’m wrong?
1. We don’t know what we are accused of or if there is new evidence regarding the 54 charges of Misrepresentation of Financial Information.
2. The major threat to City lies in whether the Premier League has new evidence that they have either uncovered themselves or obtained from FootyLeaks/Pinto/EIC.
3. Pinto claims that there is more material and that data has been shared with authorities.