You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules
- Thread starter ayrshire_blue
- Start date
Bluewonder
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 24 Jun 2013
- Messages
- 3,510
I've long suspected this could be the case. The way they changed the APT rules to entitle themselves to third party documentation also supports this point.I wonder if they asked us for third party documents, such as those relating to Etihad, and we said we don't have the jurisdiction to provide them.
The PL then marked this as being failure to cooperate.
Who is Jaber Mohammed? Delaney is waffling on about him as if he is key to us being done.
I thought I’d asked on this thread earlier but it was unintentionally put in the media one.
The PL...what a slick outfit LOLIt's 129 now according someone on 5live - the Premier League initially mis-counted but never corrected apparently.
Keep 'em coming guys...........
Having read the CAS outcome when it came out, I cannot see how the substantive charges can be proven considering they adjudged there was no evidence. The bar is high and if the PL have 'evidence' of serious fraud, then they would have been duty bound to inform the SFO.
Many of the other charges will likely be disputed on technical grounds such as Mancini's contract which was signed before the PL introduced FFP rules so how can City breach rules that did not exist.
I can't see this being anything other than a big fine for not cooperating and some points deducted for possible procedural breaches which will probably be appealed in the same way Leicester won their case.
As for 100 point deductions or excluded, only somebody with a low IQ and zero understanding of commercial or corporate litigation really thinks that will happen. We will know soon enough though.
Many of the other charges will likely be disputed on technical grounds such as Mancini's contract which was signed before the PL introduced FFP rules so how can City breach rules that did not exist.
I can't see this being anything other than a big fine for not cooperating and some points deducted for possible procedural breaches which will probably be appealed in the same way Leicester won their case.
As for 100 point deductions or excluded, only somebody with a low IQ and zero understanding of commercial or corporate litigation really thinks that will happen. We will know soon enough though.
MCFC Wirral
Well-Known Member
Just one barrister alone isn’t enough for the amount of work needed on this case.Naive question, but why so many barristers? Do they all have different fields of expertise? Are they each covering different aspects of the case?
I still remain quietly confident.
dadnlad
Well-Known Member
you can just hear we would like to start the case but bluemoon as jumpes 20 pages for some reason so we dont want to miss anythingHave they knocked off for tiffin yet?
"I can't see this being anything other than a big fine for not cooperating and some points deducted for possible procedural breaches which will probably be appealed in the same way Leicester won their case."Having read the CAS outcome when it came out, I cannot see how the substantive charges can be proven considering they adjudged there was no evidence. The bar is high and if the PL have 'evidence' of serious fraud, then they would have been duty bound to inform the SFO.
Many of the other charges will likely be disputed on technical grounds such as Mancini's contract which was signed before the PL introduced FFP rules so how can City breach rules that did not exist.
I can't see this being anything other than a big fine for not cooperating and some points deducted for possible procedural breaches which will probably be appealed in the same way Leicester won their case.
As for 100 point deductions or excluded, only somebody with a low IQ and zero understanding of commercial or corporate litigation really thinks that will happen. We will know soon enough though.
Leicester were guilty of breach of PPR rules hook, line and sinker, they got off because of a technicality because the PL messed up on the writing of the rules.
The only thing the PL will have a serious chance of getting us on are non cooperation, the question is will we be happy to take that hit?
TueartsCossackSpray
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 2 Sep 2008
- Messages
- 601
Must have more libido than me.
I don't know.They are Juventus, in a country where bribery and corruption is second nature.
After even the most cursory glance at today's headlines - and indeed Boris before Keir and the behaviour of the rest of his lot in selling contracts during Covid or the Post Office Scandal or Greenfell or Hillsborough etc etc, a fella might be forgiven should he conclude the Italians certainly don't have a monopoly on corruption as a way of life.