PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Blue Maverick]

When we win this I hope City do the countdown clock on the scoreboard like they did at QPR 115 to zero now that would be piss funny as we pick up 5 in a row

 

[bigA]

Just heard two dads at my son’s football laughing about Rodri’s injury and their heart bleeds 115 times for them. Holding my tongue is getting difficult.

Sometimes saying nothing will piss them off more than replying.

To quote a couple of lines from a song called Art School on The Jam's debut album In The City

"And never worry if people laugh at you
The fools only laugh 'cos they envy you"

 

[Big mals fedora]

We all know what the witnesses (all of them, not just Simon Pearce) said at CAS.

What we don't know is what the witnesses have said since.

But what's important to understand is that the club does. These cases are not ambushes, and they are not intended or permitted to be ambushes. If there is evidence showing that Simon Pearce or anyone else was lying at CAS, or might have been lying, by this stage of the proceedings that will not be a surprise to anyone. It will have been part of the PL's case for months if not years.

In other words, CIty will have known what the PL rely on - whether or not it is more emails from Der Spiegel = for months if not years. You go into this kind of hearing with your cards, in terms of the evidence you are relying on, already on the table lying face up. Of course, it may be something else entirely, for instance evidence that may have emerged during the disclosure process, or something else the PL have found (like a whistleblower). Either way, we can say for sure that the PL will have disclosed some time ago the evidence they intend to rely on to discredit MCFC's witnesses, and MCFC know exactly what it is that is being said against them and their witnesses.

So knowing the scale of the task they face, what can we read into the reported offer to settle for a small points deduction? IF - and it's a bit If - there really was an offer to settle for 6 points (or whatever it was) that makes me think three things.

First, IF the reality was that senior MCFC officials did lie at CAS, given that they have now seen the detail of the case against us I would be gobsmacked that the club did not take the deal. That is because the reported offer would have got the club off a particularly nasty hook at relatively modest cost, and would have been covered by a non-disclosure agreement so that the details did not enter the public domain. Such a settlement would plausibly allow the club to say 'we're not guilty but settling this for points we can win back through the season was the sensible thing to do rather than spend half the season with this hanging over us.'

Secondly, why would the PL make such an offer? Again, there are a number of reasons, but to make an offer to settle on the basis of such a lenient sanction (lenient in the context of the allegations) is a pretty clear pointer that someone somewhere along the line has spotted some pretty major weaknesses in the PL's own case. Don't get me wrong - cases with weaknesses can still succeed, and even strong cases can come apart in the courtroom - but experienced advocates can usually spot the winners from a fair distance out.

Likewise, even experienced advocates can get cold feet, but the reported offer struck me as being an attempt by the PL to get something over the line rather than face complete humiliation. I have told myself again and again to try to avoid looking at this through blue-tinted glasses, but each time I look at this I come back to a mental image of the CPS offering Fred and Rose West 6 months each for ABH.

Thirdly, disputes like this can only be resolved in two ways: one, you agree it with the other side, two, you let the panel make the decision. There are a number of reasons why we might not have accepted a settlement offer, the most probable - by far - is that the club thinks it will achieve a better outcome by going to trial. Which means that the club either thinks a non sporting sanction is likely even if City lose on the most serious charges - which I personally don't see happening in a month of Sundays - or they think the chances are that MCFC will be exonerated on everything that might lead to a sporting sanction.

Which is most of it bar the non-co-operation charge in my view.

I stress that the assumption that the PL made us an offer that, if the charges prove to be true, would be seen as ridiculously low is doing a lot of heavy lifting in the above. However if the account of that offer is in its essentials correct, to my mind that demonstrates a highly confident MCFC and a pretty desperate PL.

IF, I repeat, that offer was made.

But why would they offer us a 6 point deduction knowing we would probably turn that down, why wouldn’t they just say £5, £10, £15million fine so that we would more probably accept that??

 

[Bez]

Why would Etihad need Sheikh Mansour to pay the majority of their sponsorship contract when they were turning over billions of USD per annum? Looks like they can afford to pay it themselves which was confirmed at CAS.

 

[BerkshireBlue]

But why would they offer us a 6 point deduction knowing we would probably turn that down, why wouldn’t they just say £5, £10, £15million fine so that we would more probably accept that??

I don't believe a settlement was offered whatsoever. It makes little sense

 

[Bald fraud]

When we win this I hope City do the countdown clock on the scoreboard like they did at QPR 115 to zero now that would be piss funny as we pick up 5 in a row

Love it!

 

[wolviedinho]

Why would Etihad need Sheikh Mansour to pay the majority of their sponsorship contract when they were turning over billions of USD per annum? Looks like they can afford to pay it themselves which was confirmed at CAS.

This!

Also why would Mansour task the higher ups at City with covering his money and speaking about it so openly? Far too risky, anyone could hack your emails. This is exactly what happened.

If the Sheikh was indeed disguising owner investment then I very much doubt the actually task of carrying out said disguisement would have gotten any further than Khaldoon not some senior executive!

Either that or we were so brazen that we didn’t care and paid everyone erm consultancy fees.

It’s fucking nuts and stupid and that’s why it didn’t happen. Creative accounting is not fraud.

 

[Chris in London]

But why would they offer us a 6 point deduction knowing we would probably turn that down, why wouldn’t they just say £5, £10, £15million fine so that we would more probably accept that??

Because they thought/hoped we might take it?

 

[KS55]

Because they thought/hoped we might take it?

Yup. Suggests to me that the PL is not that confident…….after years and years of investigation.

 

[Delboy352]

Come on Khaldoon, you know it makes sense…bid for it and just let us all sit back and watch that piss boil!! https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cgryg9598q1o

 

[schfc6]

Because they thought/hoped we might take it?

I thought the idea of an offer was debunked earlier? Have I missed a turn?

 

[Big mals fedora]

Because they thought/hoped we might take it?

But if they wanted us to accept an offer, and cause us ‘guilt by association’ , then they would surely offered us something too good to turn down???! By the way I’m Not disagreeing with anything you say Chris, cos I don’t believe they offered us a deal anyway, my point being why not offer us something we couldn’t turn down if they wanted us to accept??

 

[Ric]

I’m pretty sceptical that a six-point deduction will have been offered.

 

[Prophet of Doom]

I’m pretty sceptical that a six-point deduction will have been offered.

No idea where it was originally posted that a 6 point deduction was offered but it’s obviously complete bollocks.

Why would the PL offer a 6 point settlement to City at pretty much the same time they were recommending the IC punish more than that for Forest and Everton for minor PSR transgressions.

 

[Lkzerinho]

No idea where it was originally posted that a 6 point deduction was offered but it’s obviously complete bollocks.

Why would the PL offer a 6 point settlement to City at pretty much the same time they were recommending the IC punish more than that for Forest and Everton for minor PSR transgressions.

The league also had Everton and Forest dead to rights, smoking gun and all.

In our case they have probably spent loads and loads of money on a legal team and defense, and if they offered it, it may be along the lines of they would rather get something as opposed to nothing. They could spin it as a victory without spending tons of money and time on a legal team that doesn’t even guarantee a win. It will have been a two year process to just get the tribunal started and finished plus an additional 4 years of investigating. It will have been 6 years and if they lose they will have spent a ton of money with nothing to show for it.

 

[ayrshire_blue]

No idea where it was originally posted that a 6 point deduction was offered but it’s obviously complete bollocks.

Why would the PL offer a 6 point settlement to City at pretty much the same time they were recommending the IC punish more than that for Forest and Everton for minor PSR transgressions.

Since a few people seem to have missed a chunk of the thread - fair enough due to the pace it moves - here's the link to where the "6 point deduction offer" information first came from.

Post in thread 'PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules' https://forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk/...aches-of-financial-rules.358514/post-17510222

 

[M18CTID]

I’m pretty sceptical that a six-point deduction will have been offered.

Go on - what have you heard? ;)

 

[Ric]

Go on - what have you heard? ;)

Nothing at all! Seems plausible that a settlement offer could’ve been made, but six points just seems unlikely to me.

 

[chaddblue]

No idea where it was originally posted that a 6 point deduction was offered but it’s obviously complete bollocks.

Think Prestwich Blue had said a very reliable source had told him the PL had made a settlement offer which City turned down flat

And he added that another source, who he couldn’t vouch for as strongly had told him about the 6 point offer

 

[M18CTID]

Nothing at all! Seems plausible that a settlement offer could’ve been made, but six points just seems unlikely to me.

Ok, thanks mate. Just thought you might’ve had some info from inside the club refuting the 6 point story!
With what you’ve said in mind, I’m doubtful myself but I suppose it becomes quite plausible IF the PL have been warned by their own legal team that City are likely to wipe the floor with them.