PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

gordondaviesmoustache said:
There may be perfectly valid reasons for that. It isn’t unusual for there to be a hiatus between the conclusion of the evidence and closing arguments. Four weeks isn’t unheard of if diaries get in the way.
Click to expand...
it wouldn’t be 4 x weeks - it would be 6 x weeks from the 1st Nov to mid December.

Maybe there has been a 6 weeks hiatus before closing statements - but I doubt it.

We’ve now heard multiple rumours about the majority of charges being still born, the case not lasting anywhere near the booked time etc. all we know for sure is that closing statements are later than expected so I’m finding it hard to believe all those promising rumours over recent weeks.

Not sure my blood pressure can handle another few months of the stress of it.
 
Prophet of Doom said:
it wouldn’t be 4 x weeks - it would be 6 x weeks from the 1st Nov to mid December.

Maybe there has been a 6 weeks hiatus before closing statements - but I doubt it.

We’ve now heard multiple rumours about the majority of charges being still born, the case not lasting anywhere near the booked time etc. all we know for sure is that closing statements are later than expected so I’m finding it hard to believe all those promising rumours over recent weeks.

Not sure my blood pressure can handle another few months of the stress of it.
Click to expand...
Six weeks is a stretch tbf.

Why are you inclined to not believe any rumours other than when the closing arguments are?
 
A case of this magnitude, with the possible ramifications for both parties once finished was never going to be a ‘slam dunk’. Clearly it’s far too in-depth & big in scope. Some of the best lawyers the country has to offer and representing both sides.

My feeling is that there will be a lengthy appeal process after the tribunal announces its decision by one of, if not both parties. It’ll end up running on & on.
 
calumdown said:
not in the slightest, blue.

very little i say is to be taken too seriously,
hence the little smile i gave you.
Click to expand...
Second time lucky :)

(I saw your first attempt)

I'm only joking. I would actually prefer Tolmie's info to be correct but I'm more inclined to go with The Lawyer unfortunately
 
halfcenturyup said:
That is a circle that takes some squaring, but I am not that surprised the PL ended their investigation with a list of unanswered allegations (I have done that myself many times: this is as far as we can go, this is the list of unanswered issues and possible breaches, do we proceed?). What surprises me more is that they went to the disciplinary process with all the allegations.

Let me explain.

Their investigation reached the point where they had gone as far as they could with the accounting records and supporting documentation available at the club. They needed external information to conclude on each of the matters but the club refused access, or claimed that the third parties refused access. I have previously given my thoughts on why the club would take that approach.

So the PL had to either drop the case for a lack of evidence or proceed with the allegations in the disciplinary process. This would be a wholly unsatisfactory position for the PL because they knew evidence was provided to CAS that they didn't have access to. Evidence that would have clarified some of the issues. So what could they do? Dropping the case would set a terrible precedent on cooperation. Continuing the case would likely lead to defeat when the counter-evidence was presented. In the end, though, I am not surprised they decided to refer the club to the disciplinary process.

But the question of what gets referred is where pressure from the cartel comes in. The investigation may have had 115 unanswered issues but, basically, there is one, single issue that could have been referred, two including non-cooperation. There was no need to refer to all 115 as separate allegations because almost all are either immaterial or consequential to the main allegation. In whose interest is it to have as much coverage given to all the allegations? And who is too weak to stand up against it?

Anyway, just my thoughts :)
Click to expand...


Not proceeding without conclusive evidence is typically not an issue under normal circumstances, and there is evidence that the Premier League has accepted this on many occasions.

The directive clearly came from the cartel, and the subsequent aggression displayed by both sides indicates that much has been said since. Both sides are now fighting for their survival, which is far from normal.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Six weeks is a stretch tbf.

Why are you inclined to not believe any rumours other than when the closing arguments are?
Click to expand...
Just not sure anybody that knew where the case was up to would claim it was done when closing statements won’t be complete until 6 or 7 weeks later.

I’m sure Tolmie tweeted it in good faith from what he was told but the case was not done.

The Lawyer has published various exclusive updates so I’m sure their news is bob on.
 
Prophet of Doom said:
Just not sure anybody that knew where the case was up to would claim it was done when closing statements won’t be complete until 6 or 7 weeks later.

I’m sure Tolmie tweeted it in good faith from what he was told but the case was not done.

The Lawyer has published various exclusive updates so I’m sure their news is bob on.
Click to expand...

Like you, I'm not convinced by rumours (given in good faith) that everything is fine and will be completely fine.

I just think it will be a messy verdict. Found guilty on some things, not guilty on others and then the shouting matches on who won will begin. Then of course, the appeals...

Just seems a more likely scenario than an either/or verdict.
 
argyle said:
Like you, I'm not convinced by rumours (given in good faith) that everything is fine and will be completely fine.

I just think it will be a messy verdict. Found guilty on some things, not guilty on others and then the shouting matches on who won will begin. Then of course, the appeals...

Just seems a more likely scenario than an either/or verdict.
Click to expand...
You mean breached some rules that didn’t exist a decade or so back? Why City fans persist in using these legal terms spouted by the press is beyond me. We’re not in Magistrates or Crown Court.

For the most serious breaches, the implications are tantamount to fraud. I’m just imagining the Police or other enforcement bodies hanging back whilst the crack investigation team at The Premier League do their thang.

I’ll worry when uniformed officers are pictured seizing computers at The Etihad stadium, Etihad Airways, Etisalat and Bobby Manc’s house.

The Premier League have produced a great product but when it comes to setting rules, their legality and enforcing them at the behest of their perceived cash cow clubs, they’re a joke.

That’s why I’m with Tolmie’s assertions.
 
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