PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[The Norfolk Blue]

I was just imagining winning the League and FA cup as a 2nd Division side, than winning both again and the Charity Shield and European Cup as a 1st Division side, than winning all these again as a Championship side before we return to the precious PL.

I mean we are known for breaking records no??

All would fit our already famous history that we do not have.

Brilliant …. and imagine if the entire squad stayed with us, including Pep who extended his contract by x number of years it would take to get back?

 

[1961_vintage]

The PL would be wise to remember that this league would be nothing without the fans.

Unfortunately their definition of "fan" is totally different to ours.

For the PL, a fan is one who is a fully paid-up sky sports subscriber - following his/her team through the TV coverage and hence the heavily weighted bias to where those fans are mostly found, ie the cartel clubs.

 

[St Helens Blue (Exiled)]

I take everything with a pinch of salt including slbsn.
People have to make livings. Generate engagements etc.
Until January and the final ruling I believe nothing I read or see off so called experts.
The only person I believe is Khaldoon when he stated we had 'irrefutable evidence'

Everything else is just speculation.

 

[BLUE THUNDER]

I don’t but I think it is fairly universally accepted that for their to be a 10 week trail, that both parties are planning on demonstrating a substantial amount of evidence and witness statements.

Think your question is probably whether it’s credible or of value.

A large amount of evidence being submitted doesn’t tend to mean at fault, in fact it could be argued they are presenting so much as on it’s own none of what they show is in anyway good enough.

A confidence of the opposition on a small amount of evidence, could be a lot more damning if that evidence proves their point.

I think it’s actually fair to guess that the PL have nothing of real value as to be submitting so much, but as my posts go outside people involved we really don’t know at this point.

But please don’t confuse substantial as anything other then the amount of evidence they have, 10 witness statements of someone saying they heard a bang and saw x running away, would be worth far less then 1 person giving a witness statement that they saw x shooting x.

Terrible example, but I hope it helps understand the point I am making.

Yes it does.
Fair point.

 

[halfcenturyup]

I'm pretty sure I'm misunderstanding you here, but for someone who repeatedly says we're bang to rights and definitely will be found guilty, you then saying he breaks it down well and you're impressed by what they had to say - are you a bit more persuaded by the arguments of MH than you once were? Has your thoughts on the likelihood of the outcome changed?

I know you've explicitly said they're far too confident of the outcome and naive on certain points, but it's the highest I've seen you "praise" him.

I think the point is that Harris/Magic Twat put forward a reasonable case based on what they know, but they don't consider properly what they don't know. The only sources they have are the der Spiegel documents and the CAS award. Any fool can make a case for the claimant based on those if they have the time and the inclination.

One can admire the amount of work being put into the "project" and into the analysis that has been done without agreeing with a conclusion, which is, as said, naive and, imo, limited in both content and intellectual thought and lacking objectivity as well as some basic legal principles.

Anyway, that I think was the point.

 

[slbsn]

I'm pretty sure I'm misunderstanding you here, but for someone who repeatedly says we're bang to rights and definitely will be found guilty, you then saying he breaks it down well and you're impressed by what they had to say - are you a bit more persuaded by the arguments of MH than you once were? Has your thoughts on the likelihood of the outcome changed?

I know you've explicitly said they're far too confident of the outcome and naive on certain points, but it's the highest I've seen you "praise" him.

Nothing has changed from my side.

So he summarises well from a completely one sided standpoint. In litigation you often receive correspondence or written submissions that paint a completely one sided reading of the evidence. To a reader who doesn’t know what happened such documents sound convincing. Then the other side do the same and they also sounds completely convincing. I’m merely saying he articulated the case against City reasonably well (with some major caveats).

 

[slbsn]

I think the point is that Harris/Magic Twat put forward a reasonable case based on what they know, but they don't consider properly what they don't know. The only sources they have are the der Spiegel documents and the CAS award. Any fool can make a case for the claimant based on those if they have the time and the inclination.

One can admire the amount of work being put into the "project" and into the analysis that has been done without agreeing with a conclusion, which is, as said, naive and, imo, limited in both content and intellectual thought and lacking objectivity as well as some basic legal principles.

Anyway, that I think was the point.

Explained better than me!

 

[mancboy]

I think the point is that Harris/Magic Twat put forward a reasonable case based on what they know, but they don't consider properly what they don't know. The only sources they have are the der Spiegel documents and the CAS award. Any fool can make a case for the claimant based on those if they have the time and the inclination.

One can admire the amount of work being put into the "project" and into the analysis that has been done without agreeing with a conclusion, which is, as said, naive and, imo, limited in both content and intellectual thought and lacking objectivity as well as some basic legal principles.

Anyway, that I think was the point.

Basically what magic/twat/harris has done has used what is freely available for their own confirmation bias, they want a certain outcome and narrative so have used what is out there to support that narrative while conveniently ignoring what is also out there to support the opposing narrative, that is the problem with this case as a whole it has removed the ability of people viewing it to employ critical thinking, the pl have made it to emotive.

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

Basically what magic/twat/harris has done has used what is freely available for their own confirmation bias, they want a certain outcome and narrative so have used what is out there to support that narrative while conveniently ignoring what is also out there to support the opposing narrative, that is the problem with this case as a whole it has removed the ability of people viewing it to employ critical thinking, the pl have made it to emotive.

And why wouldn’t one take that view, when they only see one side of the argument from the media. Anybody pushing against said narrative will be weighed down in bile on the likes of X, et al.

 

[mancboy]

And why wouldn’t one take that view, when they only see one side of the argument from the media. Anybody pushing against said narrative will be weighed down in bile on the likes of X, et al.

100% correct like i said it has removed the ability to rationally think about opposing views

 

[SilverFox2]

And why wouldn’t one take that view, when they only see one side of the argument from the media. Anybody pushing against said narrative will be weighed down in bile on the likes of X, et al.

In problem solving we usually start where we want to finish then choose routes that serve it's purpose.

Not sure if that applies to legal theory.

 

[ayrshire_blue]

I think the point is that Harris/Magic Twat put forward a reasonable case based on what they know, but they don't consider properly what they don't know. The only sources they have are the der Spiegel documents and the CAS award. Any fool can make a case for the claimant based on those if they have the time and the inclination.

One can admire the amount of work being put into the "project" and into the analysis that has been done without agreeing with a conclusion, which is, as said, naive and, imo, limited in both content and intellectual thought and lacking objectivity as well as some basic legal principles.

Anyway, that I think was the point.

Nothing has changed from my side.

So he summarises well from a completely one sided standpoint. In litigation you often receive correspondence or written submissions that paint a completely one sided reading of the evidence. To a reader who doesn’t know what happened such documents sound convincing. Then the other side do the same and they also sounds completely convincing. I’m merely saying he articulated the case against City reasonably well (with some major caveats).

Thank you both, that makes sense.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

Yes it's impossible a whistleblower could turn up unannounced. This will have been run like a High Court trial, which would mean witness statements filed in advance - likely some months in advance.

Exchange of witness statements could have been the first City knew of it, if there was a whistleblower. Which would have been a nasty shock, for sure. It seems unlikely based on what has been briefed, but I guess we'll see.

Of all the public domain comments so far I think Alberto Galassi's is the most significant. But still not something to attach much weight to.

Everything in disclosure, as you rightly state.

I mean, it's quite ridiculous to think the Premier League would have held back a smoking gun which would save them £25m in legal fees, just to have their gotcha moment in court.

It would never have got to court.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

Remember everybody, Tolmie who has his sources said that our execs were quietly confident having reviewed the evidence disclosed by the PL

Not quietly confident, supremely. To the point, it feels like they already know the result.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

do you actually believe sense and reason has anything to do with this whole thing? All it ever has been has been a well orchestrated smear campaign to placate the idiot fans of the cartel clubs into believing that the reason they are shite now is all citys fault and you only have to talk to rival fans and look at the press to know it has worked for them, one thing those lot are good at is spinning a narrative and marketing it, what is unfortunate for them is that the law and facts and figures has no time for their fantasies.

Exactly.

To highlight the extent of this smear, I did an intervention yesterday for a nine-year-old kid who hasn't left his bed for ten weeks and not attended school.

I've built up a rapport because he likes football and changed him from a supposed Red to a Blue, now wearing my kids' old City kits.

Managed to get him into school for an hour yesterday and he said what are City going to do when we get 30 points taken from us and why are we guilty?

The poor kid doesn't leave his room, doesn't mix, but he has his phone and the guilty narrative knows no boundaries.

 

[give it to gordon]

It’s the arrogance/small mindedness of the white western world.
They assume the leading powers in the middle east crave their approval. They simply don’t.
I watched a documentary on one of the Saudi Princes and he was asked about LIV, the football and boxing. He said it was for his people. He was doing it for his people and to show them that Saudi can attract the best of anything. I assume it’s for many reasons, but i’d suspect it’s for national moral, a demonstration that anything can be achieved and a demonstration of an admiration of his people.

After all the UAE or Saudi don’t need any help attracting business, so what or why do we the west assume they want our approval.

What's also interesting is other sports welcomes their investment.
Horse racing, Cycling, F1, Snooker to name us a few.
When you look at how other sports welcome the investment the only logical reason for Europe football to be against this is pure racism

But just look at what's been brought to Manchester, best academy in the world, investment in the local area, We are without doubt the best run Club in world football.

Give me our owner over any American.

 

[Stoned Rose]

Exactly.

To highlight the extent of this smear, I did an intervention yesterday for a nine-year-old kid who hasn't left his bed for ten weeks and not attended school.

I've built up a rapport because he likes football and changed him from a supposed Red to a Blue, now wearing my kids' old City kits.

Managed to get him into school for an hour yesterday and he said what are City going to do when we get 30 points taken from us and why are we guilty?

The poor kid doesn't leave his room, doesn't mix, but he has his phone and the guilty narrative knows no boundaries.

Next intervention needs to be get Redcafe on his blocked site list mate!

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

Basically what magic/twat/harris has done has used what is freely available for their own confirmation bias, they want a certain outcome and narrative so have used what is out there to support that narrative while conveniently ignoring what is also out there to support the opposing narrative, that is the problem with this case as a whole it has removed the ability of people viewing it to employ critical thinking, the pl have made it to emotive.

 

[spider blue]

Exactly.

To highlight the extent of this smear, I did an intervention yesterday for a nine-year-old kid who hasn't left his bed for ten weeks and not attended school.

I've built up a rapport because he likes football and changed him from a supposed Red to a Blue, now wearing my kids' old City kits.

Managed to get him into school for an hour yesterday and he said what are City going to do when we get 30 points taken from us and why are we guilty?

The poor kid doesn't leave his room, doesn't mix, but he has his phone and the guilty narrative knows no boundaries.

Sod the post, what a fantastic thing your doing for that youngster, hope everything works out for him, well done my friend.

 

[LeonardoDaVnci]

The very core of the serious charges is the flow of sponsorship funds into the parent company (ADUG) and then into the clubs current accounts. The club will provide irrefutable, independently verified transactional evidence that establishes precisely what happened between 2009 and 2018. So, misrepresentation and extrapolation of criminally obtained and falsified emails just become literally immaterial. If the club couldn't do that, they would have admitted guilt years ago. There are no technical or legal reasons why transactional evidence could not be provided, none. It would take a completely irrational bad actor along the lines of Prof Haas to disregard such compelling evidence.