PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

petrusha said:
Yes, this seems to be the position. But surely the fact that we cooperated after the High Court ruling on the matter would be relevant in terms of deciding the punishment? Even the CAS agreed that we deserved a fairly heavy fine for not cooperating in those proceedings, but the circumstances then were quite different.

Then, we expressly declined to cooperate, telling UEFA we didn't trust their process, and waited until we went before an independent tribunal before producing relevant evidence. Here, we told the PL that we didn't think they were entitled to ask for what they had, no doubt on legal advice. It turned out that the High Court agreed with them and not us. If we cooperated in full once we had clarification of what we were legally entitled to ask for, then it would seem to mitigate City's position significantly, wouldn't it?

I also note, and believe, TH's comment to the effect that we've provided the PL with a welter of material. In MCFC's own statement, the club made reference to the "vast amount of detailed materials that the EPL has been provided with". The point in this regard that I (like others) find hard to square in my own mind is why, in this event, the PL has charged us.

We've already run through the theoretical possibilities (either they have convincing evidence we're not aware of or they've given in when pressured by the redshirts to follow this course). To those, Stefan added another - that we're incorrect in our analysis with regard to the standard of proof.

If we speculate on the point that they did so having folded in the face of pressure, then I think a further issue worth raising here is the role of the media. Back in a previous lifetime, I worked for six years in the UK central government, and I've seen how ostensibly sensible and professional people can sometimes act in ways that seem to run completely counter to those qualities with a view to avoiding public criticism.

With regard to the Der Spiegel emails, I don't dispute that they showed City in a wholly negative light and were extremely damaging. Comments and discussions were committed to email that never should have been (to say nothing of the questions the episode raised with regard to our IT security, but that's a separate issue). However, Der Spiegel's presentation of the hacked documents was IMO highly selective and sensational, resulting it it being misleading to a layman reader. Intentionally so, I suspect.

The British press's resultant coverage was, however, utterly hysterical. I understand that this was a big story and it quite clearly raised serious questions for the club to answer. I have no problem with it being reported as such. But the rush to condemn the club - and the general attendant glee at having the opportunity to do so - went far, far beyond any notion of fair and impartial reporting. The only mainstream media figure with any sympathy for us was Martin Samuel, and even he assumed from the off that we were guilty.

People label this kind of thinking as paranoid, but there are journalists out there who've admitted to pushing in their reporting a line of argument that's aimed at discrediting City. Miguel Delaney and Nick Harris have both been quite open on social media about having done (and continuing to do) so, while The Guardian seems very clearly to me to have an anti-City editorial stance.

In this context, it matters little why they do this. The fact is that it sets an agenda and the rest of the football press pack follows. These people have minimal knowledge or expertise when it comes to the off-field aspects of the game, so when the prevailing narrative is set, they follow. That's what's happened with City, IMO. A few have stirred the pot and succeeded in creating a febrile environment in which MCFC are acknowledged as cheats so punishment is expected.

My contention is that, in a context where the PL has faced considerable pressure from within on the part of the redshirts to act against City, there's been considerable pressure from without, too. We'll gain an idea of what the truth is in due course, I suppose, but for now I don't find it inconceivable that the media attitude could have influenced the PL to a certain, contributory degree (I'm not saying it could be the main factor).

After all, I think that few people when taking a decision with ramifications that interest many people want to find that decision widely and publicly lambasted. And a decision on the part of the PL to decline to charge City would have been met with vituperative condemnation from the usual suspects and, most likely, from far wider quarters than that.
Click to expand...
The other fact not dealt with here is the the PL regulation arm which has filed these charges has a short term half-life due to the white paper, making the ultimate impact of losing at the panel all but moot.
 
Shads said:
Don

I genuinely believe that it is very difficult for the PL to make a case for failing to cooperate prior to the final Court hearing. It is entirely appropriate within English Law to have a Discovery dispute tested in Court prior to providing the information requested. It is not therefore a failure to cooperate if we following the final court ruling supplied everything we thought was appropriate or relevant to those requests. The ONLY way thereafter we can be found to have failed to cooperate is if we either provide further extensive documents relevant to those requests to the panel which were not supplied to the PL. Alternatively evidence is provided to show that documents that clearly exist and were relevant have been deliberately withheld.
I know others disagree with me here about this but I do not think a failure to cooperate is anything like as straightforward for the PL to find.
Click to expand...
I think you make a good point here. I am not a lawyer, but now believe that our position regarding non cooperation allegations may be stronger than I thought initially.
 
Shads said:
How can you disagree with us both? Stefan thinks we will be found to have failed to cooperate and I think we will successfully defend that charge. What position are you taking that is neither of those?
Click to expand...
I never said I think we will be found to have failed to cooperate. We don't have the information on that at all re the PL. I think you may be confusing with my view that it is not the more serious charge.
 
projectriver said:
I never said I think we will be found to have failed to cooperate. We don't have the information on that at all re the PL. I think you may be confusing with my view that it is not the more serious charge.
Click to expand...
Could be… I’ve been busy and just trying to catch up on here.
 
projectriver said:
I never said I think we will be found to have failed to cooperate. We don't have the information on that at all re the PL. I think you may be confusing with my view that it is not the more serious charge.
Click to expand...
I just looked back. Your view was that my view on the non cooperation charges was “wishful thinking”. I took That to mean that you felt we will likely be found to have failed to cooperate. Sorry if I misconstrued.
 
Shads said:
I just looked back. Your view was that my view on the non cooperation charges was “wishful thinking”. I took That to mean that you felt we will likely be found to have failed to cooperate. Sorry if I misconstrued.
Click to expand...
My view was here. Essentially the PL has wide powers. So the bar is relatively low for the PL on these charges. We don’t know what was and wasn’t/will or won’t be provided but there are few hiding places or games we can play given the breadth of the rules. Of course, obviously irrelevant or fishing or non existent or third party docs are exemptions.

forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk

PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

I still find it weird that in a 4 year investigation they’ve not bothered questioning or even speaking to him. He would probably chin them, he put the shits up the Glasgow Pisscan so some overpaid administrators are not going to faze him.
forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk
 
Shads said:
I genuinely believe that it is very difficult for the PL to make a case for failing to cooperate prior to the final Court hearing. It is entirely appropriate within English Law to have a Discovery dispute tested in Court prior to providing the information requested. It is not therefore a failure to cooperate if we following the final court ruling supplied everything we thought was appropriate or relevant to those requests. The ONLY way thereafter we can be found to have failed to cooperate is if we either provide further extensive documents relevant to those requests to the panel which were not supplied to the PL. Alternatively evidence is provided to show that documents that clearly exist and were relevant have been deliberately withheld.
I know others disagree with me here about this but I do not think a failure to cooperate is anything like as straightforward for the PL to find.
Click to expand...

I have no legal knowledge so I’m very aware law is different to common sense but that seems perfectly logical to me.
 
Keeper! said:
Outstanding post and perfectly on point.

Our club should have responded to the media long ago, they should be lauded for what they have done for English football, England and Manchester.

They have raised the bar incredibly high in how professional football clubs should be run.
Click to expand...

Thank you. I’m not sure about lauded given one or two of the issues associated with our owners outside of football, albeit that they’ve done a great job for Manchester City, and I’m forever on the fence about whether butting heads with the media is a good idea. Sometimes I think that, thus far, we have only really been attributed a fixed role - cast as some sort of gauche arriviste or pantomime vulgarian - as a convenient, click harvesting, means of measuring the perceived (although not by me I hasten to add!) class and quiet dignity of the old guard, and that it’s perhaps better to just let that narrative wash over us than get into a fight……the alternative being the kind of situation Prince Harry now finds himself in (albeit that he hasn’t exactly helped himself), whereby the media has now demonised him to such an extent - over the course of the last 4 years the Mail has run on average half a dozen, slanted, poison pen pieces on him per day, which overall is somewhere in the region of 6000 such articles, a genuinely incredible number - that we’re nearing the point at which it will become impossible for him to return to this country, for fear of some idiot trying to do him serious harm.
Like, I suspect, most City fans, I don’t necessarily want the kind of fawning the rags and Liverpool have visited upon them, just something more balanced than we get now. I certainly don’t, for example, resent the media’s coverage of this current matter, or at least the substance of it, if not the tone. If it were Liverpool who’d been caught with what are, whether we like it or not, highly suggestive emails, I would expect, and want, the press to shine their torches into every corner. What irks is their deliberate unwillingness to consider any possibility or explanation that might point to our innocence, and of course we may not be (innocent), but when you’re running polls asking what punishment should Manchester City face when the hearing hasn’t even taken place, it’s no wonder that for many Blues this often feels like a witch hunt and makes us want to get stuck right into the feckers!
 
Last edited:
Shads said:
If it’s just him being a **** then professional help is a waste of time. As we both know there is no cure for being a ****…
Click to expand...
Not true, it's amazing what they can do with surgery nowadays. I think they turn it inside out, although that would make him a prick I suppose.

Regarding the noncooperation charges I think you're making me more confident on those.

Has the Chelsea idiot been bounced btw? I've only just put him on ignore :)
 
Centurions said:
Not true, it's amazing what they can do with surgery nowadays. I think they turn it inside out, although that would make him a prick I suppose.

Regarding the noncooperation charges I think you're making me more confident on those.

Has the Chelsea idiot been bounced btw? I've only just put him on ignore :)
Click to expand...

Flounced, not bounced!
 
Exeter Blue I am here said:
Thank you. I’m not sure about lauded given one or two of the issues associated with our owners outside of football, albeit that they’ve done a great job for Manchester City, and I’m forever on the fence about whether butting heads with the media is a good idea. Sometimes I think that, thus far, we have only really been attributed a fixed role - cast as some sort of gauche arriviste or pantomime vulgarian - as a convenient, click harvesting, means of measuring the perceived (although not by me I hasten to add!) class and quiet dignity of the old guard, and that it’s perhaps better to just let that narrative wash over us than get into a fight……the alternative being the kind of situation Prince Harry now finds himself in (albeit that he hasn’t exactly helped himself), whereby the media has now demonised him to such an extent - over the course of the last 4 years the Mail has run on average half a dozen, slanted, poison pen pieces on him per day, which overall is somewhere in the region of 6000 such articles, a genuinely incredible number - that we’re nearing the point at which it will become impossible for him to return to this country, for fear of some idiot trying to do him serious harm.
Like, I suspect, most City fans, I don’t necessarily want the kind of fawning the rags and Liverpool have visited upon them, just something more balanced than we get now. I certainly don’t, for example, resent the media’s coverage of this current matter, or at least the substance of it, if not the tone. If it were Liverpool who’d been caught with what are, whether we like it or not, highly suggestive emails, I would expect, and want, the press to shine their torches into every corner. What irks is their deliberate unwillingness to consider any possibility or explanation that might point to our innocence, and of course we may not be (innocent), but when you’re running polls asking what punishment should Manchester City face when the hearing hasn’t even taken place, it’s no wonder that for many Blues this often feels like a witch hunt and makes us want to get stuck right into the feckers!
Click to expand...

Have we not been at a similar point to Harry being in danger for e.g.

Sterling booed at every ground, attacked in road rage incident & racially abused at Chelsea.

Foden & his family attached at the boxing.

Coach & fans attacked outside Anfield

Pint pot filled with coins launched at fans.

The list could go on but there is an element of those vilified by the media have been attacked & it’s considered justified.
 
cheekybids said:
Have we not been at a similar point to Harry being in danger for e.g.

Sterling booed at every ground, attacked in road rage incident & racially abused at Chelsea.

Foden & his family attached at the boxing.

Coach & fans attacked outside Anfield

Pint pot filled with coins launched at fans.

The list could go on but there is an element of those vilified by the media have been attacked & it’s considered justified.
Click to expand...
I think you can probably test this by asking how many other clubs have had team members attacked when out and about on multiple occasions

AND have had their team bus attacked on their way to a game

AND have had one of their number racially abused while on the pitch

AND have had one of their fans significantly injured by a pint pot filled with coins from being launched at them

Plainly these actions are conducted by individuals who are not thinking right. Plainly other clubs might have suffered on or two of these sorts of issues. I don’t know, but I don’t know of any club that has received the volume of physical and non physical abuse we have, nor can I think of another club that has received the volume of adverse media comment we have. I would however be very surprised if there wasn’t a connection between the two things.
 
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