PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[M18CTID]

Challenged but not disproven. Hence why we are here today talking about another hearing.

Sounds like you think we're guilty

 

[ayrshire_blue]

Good question. It seems like, initially, we only knew what the PL published. But we'd have to know the specifics to enable us to mount a defence.

Surely soon as well. I know it's not court, but can you imagine an accused person only finding out last minute or when they turn up for trial specifically what they're alleged to have done wrong? The defence should know exactly what the prosecution are going to present and the angle they will take.

 

[champo]

Can anyone remember City’s reasoning for not cooperating with UEFA? From memory there were concerns about leaks to the press, in particular through a journalist called Tariq Panja at the NYT but I can’t remember why these leaks were damaging, i.e how the information was used, and the specific reasons City refused to cooperate.

I guess the reason I am asking is I am sure there will be similar reasons for not cooperating with the PL. What other reasons would City have for not sharing information?

 

[kaz7]

Abu Dhabi isn't a country Kaz.

You know what i mean ! Hopefully, ha

 

[Saddleworth2]

I can't make sense of this timeline either. It seems to have arisen in people's minds in the mistaken belief that this matter could be contested through the courts and/or that because the investigation took years, the adjudication will as well neither of which is right.

That said, while I haven't read all of the stuff on this thread, I don't recall seeing anyone picking up on what I find a bit strange in the City statement:

“The Club welcomes the review of this matter by an independent Commission, to impartially consider the comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence that exists in support of its position".

What and where is this body of irrefutable evidence? Is this something that the PL have and which they don't think is irrefutable so they've proceeded with the charges? Or is it other evidence that City possess but have not provided to the PL but maybe were going to do if the apparently sudden decision to publicise the charges hadn't pre-empted it? If I recall City have a bit of form during the CAS thing where I got the impression they weren't exactly as forthcoming with information as they might have been (maybe because of tactics) and is the same thing happening here?

I also have a recollection (perhaps wrong) that City made mention of "irrefutable evidence" in the CAS case. Not sure if anyone remembers this?

they did, at least a couple of times.

 

[5 Hit Gibbon]

Interesting (strokes chin).... VERY interesting!

It's staggering. I hope we take the PL to the cleaners and sue the fuck out of them.

 

[manimanc]

Ducker from the telegraph saying the premier league independent commission do not have the power to relegate City.
They have the power for Expulsion ,points deduction or fine .
If expelled we would have to apply to join the football league 2 ,he goes on to say they could refuse us .

What, utd fan ducker wishing us all the best and sounding like a bitter little prick?
He's loving it, i've never seen utd fans as happy, for the last 18 months they've hated football and thrown the towel in more times than Rockys corner.

Let them take the piss, let them have their fun in the sun, it'll be for nothing in the end.

 

[M18CTID]

I can't make sense of this timeline either. It seems to have arisen in people's minds in the mistaken belief that this matter could be contested through the courts and/or that because the investigation took years, the adjudication will as well neither of which is right.

That said, while I haven't read all of the stuff on this thread, I don't recall seeing anyone picking up on what I find a bit strange in the City statement:

“The Club welcomes the review of this matter by an independent Commission, to impartially consider the comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence that exists in support of its position".

What and where is this body of irrefutable evidence? Is this something that the PL have and which they don't think is irrefutable so they've proceeded with the charges? Or is it other evidence that City possess but have not provided to the PL but maybe were going to do if the apparently sudden decision to publicise the charges hadn't pre-empted it? If I recall City have a bit of form during the CAS thing where I got the impression they weren't exactly as forthcoming with information as they might have been (maybe because of tactics) and is the same thing happening here?

I also have a recollection (perhaps wrong) that City made mention of "irrefutable evidence" in the CAS case. Not sure if anyone remembers this?

I've no idea how much "irrefutable evidence" we've made available to the PL but given that they've chucked in all the charges that UEFA had us up on - and we successfully appealed against - I'd imagine that for those charges at least, we'll have presented that exact same evidence (that CAS deemed more than good enough) to the PL. Outside of those charges though, I've no idea how much or how little evidence we've put forward so far.

 

[Keeper!]

Has this been posted yet?

Thought it was really good summary

Superb, thanks for posting

 

[Dodge]

Ooops my bad, he sent it from Oz, so I presumed it was in one of their daily papers.
Good spot & thanks for the correction.
Still a great letter though.

...and just noticed that @Ric posted it on the media thread yesterday, my day just gets worse!!