PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

halfcenturyup said:
I am not so sure. My feeling is that the PL has to carry this through to the end. It would be organisational suicide not to. Even if Masters is removed, the PL will have to continue the process to its completion imho.

It's better (not by much in the current climate, granted) for the PL to fight and lose than to give up after a year of (effectively) tub-thumping.
Click to expand...
No doubt time will tell. But will they continue to flog a dead horse if the facts are increasingly indicating we are not guilty and that info is in the public domain? The PL could say at anytime we have rigorously investigated this and there is no substantive evidence. Sometimes you have to accept defeat however difficult that will be for them rather than flogging a dead horse. We shall see.
 
GortonBlue62 said:
What I'm rying to find out is, we're the time barred charges the same as the charges we were exonerated on but just earlier? Also what percentage of the charges were time barred?
Click to expand...
Not sure anyone answered this yet. I'll try but it's all from memory as I'm on my phone. I will check later for any stupid mistakes.

UEFA's charges were that ADUG had provided some of the funds to three AD sponsors (Etihad, Etisalat and iirc Aabar) and also included Mancini's contract. The charges all related directly to ingormation in the hacked emails, but the charges related to Etisalat, Aabar and Mancini were time barred.

Aabar and Mancini were small amounts and not referred to further in the award as they were time barred.

Etisalat was time barred but was more material and was explained in some detail. There was no conclusion because the matter was time barred but it is very likely, following the reasoning in the Etihad discussion based on evidence provided by the two parties, that if it hadn't been time barred, then the explained facts would have countered the allegation in the same way.

Iirc, the Etihad charges covered a number of years, some (I think one) were time barred, the others not. The explanations given for the years not time barred were accepted, and it is very likely that the same explanations would have been accepted for the other years had they not been time barred.

So, a percentage, I don't know. Some idea of the scale though. Mancini was 1 million a year, Aabar (not sure) say 10 million a year, Etisalat 15 million a year and Etihad over 50 million a year.

So the vast majority in monetary terms, Etihad and Etisalat were either not proven or very, very likely would have been not proven had they not been time barred.

Best I can do now. Will check later .....

Edit: Saw @Prestwich_Blue 's reply. Let me know how many mistakes I made :)
 
Last edited:
BlueMoonz1977 said:
Just watching the typical city interview with Stefan. Interesting part for me
, Stefan mentions the following ' either the alleged fraud did not occur, or, the independent commission is not able to establish to the necessary legal standard that these things occurred'

and right there in that last part could be the PL get out of jail card statement and finding. It would find no charge (except for maybe non co-operation) but leave the red shirts and media to still say city are guilty but got off on a technicality once again

@KS55 - this a possibility maybe
Click to expand...
I thought that was a tremendous listen.
Another bit that caught my attention was when Stefan said something to the effect 'even if the PL win its still an absolute disaster for them". Certainly got me thinking.
 
halfcenturyup said:
That is almost certainly the outcome.

They won't be able to prove it (the most serious charges) either because it didn't happen or because they will not have access to the evidence they need to prove it.

People can say what they like. Who cares?

Edit: I should have said the most serious charges. Amended above. They can still have some success on non-compliance and, probably, some disclosure issues.
Click to expand...
My expectation since the start has been that the Mancini and Fordham charges will end up being ‘proven’ along with the non compliance ones but the most serious will fall.

Since it was rumoured that May 25 is the target to release a ruling I’ve suspected a large fine and some points off for the above, ultimately reduced to a fine only on appeal leaving nobody happy.
 
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
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.