PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[PPT]

So why do other sports welcome the investment ?
If it's about protectionism than that is no way to run the best league in the world or Europe football

It is. And that protectionism is about profit. That is the one and only thing the Americans are interested in. They don’t care what they have to do to get it, and protect it. They are the worst thing that has ever happened to English football in all of its history.

 

[cheekybids]

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 same types of people convince themselves of the following

Rags are acting like a proper club
Bruno is better than KDB
Casemiro is better than Rodri
Rice is better than Rodri
Haaland will fail in the premier league
Rags had the best transfer window
Omar is a great CEO
Pep gives no guarantees of success
Mourinho is building Inter2.0 at the Rags
Our year next year lah

Every day there is a deluge of stories where the confirmation bias sets hem up for a fall. It would be like booking 2 weeks in Morecambe & expecting better weather than Marbella.

 

[Gone for a Burton]

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.

£25 million legal costs....It could be much higher.

Damages could be twice as much as legal costs.

I pray each night and twice in the morning that City financially demolish the PL and everyone else who has acted against us.

The UAE culture is to be discreet about public disputes and if necessary, take generations to serve their cold dish of revenge.

But they will serve it and the recipient won't necessarily be aware of it.

BOOM....what the fuck was that !!

 

[halfcenturyup]

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.

The PL has some "evidence" that what they allege has actually happened. We know that from the leaked emails, but we also have to assume they have more "evidence", for more years, from their investigation.

The problem for the club is to show that something that didn't happen, didn't happen. The way they did that at CAS was to get an independent auditor to look at payments from ADUG and show none went to Etihad. It's a start, but it's not wholly convincing (the money could have come from another ADUG company, for example, or be routed through other companies or come from Mansour's personal accounts). By the way, this is why control of access to external information is so important. The club can now control, to a great degree, the information it provides to the panel, and in what format they present it. Anyway, together with the witness statements that it didn't happen, including statements from Etihad that they didn't receive any money from ADUG or Mansour, which CAS found compelling, it was enough to sway the majority of the panel, with comfortable satisfaction, in favour of the club's position. The audit report(s) this time will be different and the witness statements presumably also, to cover the greater number, and specificities, of the 115 allegations. So much for the club's problem.

The PL's problem is that their "evidence" is entirely circumstantial, as was UEFA's, and they have the burden of proof to show that the alleged behaviours, on the balance of probability with a high degree of cogency, actually took place. UEFA couldn't, and I very much doubt the PL will be able to, either. Certainly not on the most serious charges.

 

[citizen_maine]

The PL has some "evidence" that what they allege has actually happened. We know that from the leaked emails, but we also have to assume they have more "evidence", for more years, from their investigation.

The problem for the club is to show that something that didn't happen, didn't happen. The way they did that at CAS was to get an independent auditor to look at payments from ADUG and show none went to Etihad. It's a start, but it's not wholly convincing (the money could have come from another ADUG company, for example, or be routed through other companies or come from Mansour's personal accounts). By the way, this is why control of access to external information is so important. The club can now control, to a great degree, the information it provides to the panel, and in what format they present it. Anyway, together with the witness statements that it didn't happen, including statements from Etihad that they didn't receive any money from ADUG or Mansour, which CAS found compelling, it was enough to sway the majority of the panel, with comfortable satisfaction, in favour of the club's position. The audit report(s) this time will be different and the witness statements presumably also, to cover the greater number, and specificities, of the 115 allegations. So much for the club's problem.

The PL's problem is that their "evidence" is entirely circumstantial, as was UEFA's, and they have the burden of proof to show that the alleged behaviours, on the balance of probability with a high degree of cogency, actually took place. UEFA couldn't, and I very much doubt the PL will be able to, either. Certainly not on the most serious charges.

That's the PL's problem isn't it. The onus is on them to prove that what they allege happened actually happened, despite our accounts showing otherwise

 

[Cityfan1977]

I remember when the Der Spiegel 4 articles came out it was very one sited, it was "this is how City cheated". but not " Did City cheat?"
I dont remember but where there any comments from City in the Der Spiegel articles.?
Any way there was nothing normal how one sited Der Spiegel was and here we are 6 years later .
Does anyone remember how did City responce in the aftermath of Der Spiegel, where there any counterargument in the Der Spiegel from City site.
Could City not have taken Der Spiegel to court before UEFA charged us ?

 

[Cityfan1977]

The PL has some "evidence" that what they allege has actually happened. We know that from the leaked emails, but we also have to assume they have more "evidence", for more years, from their investigation.

The problem for the club is to show that something that didn't happen, didn't happen. The way they did that at CAS was to get an independent auditor to look at payments from ADUG and show none went to Etihad. It's a start, but it's not wholly convincing (the money could have come from another ADUG company, for example, or be routed through other companies or come from Mansour's personal accounts). By the way, this is why control of access to external information is so important. The club can now control, to a great degree, the information it provides to the panel, and in what format they present it. Anyway, together with the witness statements that it didn't happen, including statements from Etihad that they didn't receive any money from ADUG or Mansour, which CAS found compelling, it was enough to sway the majority of the panel, with comfortable satisfaction, in favour of the club's position. The audit report(s) this time will be different and the witness statements presumably also, to cover the greater number, and specificities, of the 115 allegations. So much for the club's problem.

The PL's problem is that their "evidence" is entirely circumstantial, as was UEFA's, and they have the burden of proof to show that the alleged behaviours, on the balance of probability with a high degree of cogency, actually took place. UEFA couldn't, and I very much doubt the PL will be able to, either. Certainly not on the most serious charges.

I thought that PL had to prove City cheated not the other way around

 

[Sk@mcfc]

The same types of people convince themselves of the following

Rags are acting like a proper club
Bruno is better than KDB
Casemiro is better than Rodri
Rice is better than Rodri
Haaland will fail in the premier league
Rags had the best transfer window
Omar is a great CEO
Pep gives no guarantees of success
Mourinho is building Inter2.0 at the Rags
Our year next year lah

Every day there is a deluge of stories where the confirmation bias sets hem up for a fall. It would be like booking 2 weeks in Morecambe & expecting better weather than Marbella.

 

[chaddblue]

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

The simple fact that the north stand development is pushing on at a rapid speed and they’re even publishing seating layout photos, screams out that they definitely know what the result won’t be

 

[LeonardoDaVnci]

That's the PL's problem isn't it. The onus is on them to prove that what they allege happened actually happened, despite our accounts showing otherwise

Yes and they have to do that 130 times. So, eg they have to provide transactional evidence of HHSM, repeatedly, over nine years, sending personal funds to Etihad Airways so they could they just pass it on to ADUG !. Or are they going to say they just suspect it happened, based on one falsified email circa 2012. And in the context of HHSM wtf constitutes his "personal" funds. The implications of these unfounded accusations will hopefully have consequences for the likes of Masters and Levy.
And they have what ? 10 weeks, thats 50 days, approx 300 hours, divided by 2 for our time. So in 150 hours they are going to prove 130 charges, what is this reality we have entered into ?. I have personal experience of a case of 9 charges that took 5 months to run and still didn't complete. None of this adds up.