No change in my camp.
We know nothing with any certainty, I fall back on do I believe the clubs leadership when they say they have done nothing wrong and they have irrefutable evidence to prove it.
There was no "evidence" to prove practically the same serious charges at CAS.
IMO the scandal is in fact UEFA circumvented its own rules to impose a ban for which there was no evidence (12 times) to sufficiently support their charges.
There is no "evidence" in the public domain to suggest otherwise. Have the PL acquired more documents, yes, but nobody knows what they are or if they prove City did anything wrong with respect to any of the charges, let alone the more serious allegations of fraud, to the necessary standard.
So now we learn from the APT case that the PL's rules in some aspects are unlawful and unfair, also have treated us like pariahs, have been disgraceful in the dealings with our sponsorships and been disingenuous and deliberately instigated delays in at least two cases.
Read their interpretation of the findings -
Premier League Statement
Contrast this to the actual findings where their behaviour in dealing with us is outlined:
The APT Decisions
As set out above, the APT Rules dictate that the PL must make a final decision as to all APT applications within a specific timeframe. City claimed that the PL had exceeded this limit in respect of the APT Decisions. The Tribunal decided that, in two of these instances, the PL had exceeded the time limit due to a lack of resources within their regulatory team, whilst the PL accepted that it had created a delay in the third instance.
The Tribunal decided that there was no evidence that City had been unable to make any APT transaction because of these delays, and that no potential sponsorships were compromised by them. However, the Tribunal also found that the PL had created an "
unreasonable delay" in respect of the FAB APT (by three months) and the EP APT (by two months). City may seek damages because of these delays, although given the findings of the Tribunal, the loss suffered is not immediately apparent. It is noteworthy that the PL here was found to have broken the APT Rules rather than the rules themselves being found to be deficient, and that the Board subsequently revised its decision in respect of the EP APT following representations made by City.
The Tribunal also found that the Board's decisions relating to the EAG APT and the FAB APT should be set aside on the grounds of procedural unfairness. In relation to the EAG APT, the Tribunal found that procedural unfairness arose because the Board did not give City an opportunity to respond to the FMV benchmarking analysis before reaching its decision. Regarding the FAB APT, the Tribunal ruled that, prior to the Board's final determination, it did not give City access to the Databank transactions completed by other clubs to which the Board referred in its final determination.
The outfall of this is the current regulator the PL have been found to have treated us with utter disdain and with deliberate intent to use procedures unfairly. I believe this is utterly contemptible on their part, yet the media in this country have shovelled that part of the decision under the carpet.
I sincerely hope Lord Pannick was able to point this out to the Independent Commission members in charge of the 115 case. Whilst having no evidential effect it certainly portrays a "mindset" of the regulator in respect of legal matters with MCFC.
Now we await the IC's decision on the PL's rushed resolution to the APT deficiencies voted in by the usual suspects. Lets hope for another positive outcome for City.
So, do I believe our owners and executives, sponsors, auditors, accountants and other third parties have acted fraudulently, dishonestly, conspiratorially and knowingly submitted false accounts for a period of 10 years or more? Do I believe Simon Pierce and others including Etihad senior executives lied under oath at CAS? Do I believe those same individuals submitted false evidence in support of their statements and witness testimony?
No i do not! What's more if you can take that leap of faith you must therefore believe that there will be no smoking gun evidence to prove that they did any of those things.
I honestly believe that if City had been guilty of any of those major charges there would have been a settlement before litigation. It makes no sense to me to argue a case for which there would be clear evidence to substantiate the accusations.
However as anyone who knows anything about either criminal or civil court procedure and the legal system knows, entities can be found to have done things they did not on the balance of probabilities if they are unable to submit sufficient rebuttal evidence to that of their accusers or in the case of perverse findings by the judge, judges, panel or Commission. There are of course procedural appeal remedies in some cases of but findings of fact interpreted by the Commission would be difficult to overcome unless it was clearly perverse. These are the perils of litigation.
Let's all hope Lord Pannick and his team have presented our irrefutable evidence sufficiently well to be successful in repudiating the PL's accusations of financial impropriety, malfeasance, obfuscation and obstruction.