PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[halfcenturyup]

I thought the club cooperated once it was instructed by law. Surely you have a right to challenge.

I assume they fully complied as far as they were requested and within the rules as they understood them. If they were asked for information which in their opinion the PL had no right to ask for, it's a good policy to say fuck off.

The question is, if you later provide the information that was requested as evidence against allegations from the investigation, to what extent is that non-cooperation? :)

 

[cheekybids]

I assume they fully complied as far as they were requested and within the rules as they understood them. If they were asked for information which in their opinion the PL had no right to ask for, it's a good policy to say fuck off.

The question is, if you later provide the information that was requested as evidence against allegations from the investigation, to what extent is that non-cooperation? :)

I think the difference with UEFA was we never cooperated & went to CAS. We have cooperated with the premier league enquiry but as its serious we have followed legal advice prior.

 

[halfcenturyup]

I think the difference with UEFA was we never cooperated & went to CAS. We have cooperated with the premier league enquiry but as its serious we have followed legal advice prior.

You may be right. We will see in a few months, one way or the other :)

 

[eyalluvitt]

It’s like being accused of not cooperating with the thief that’s broken into your house and asking you where your family silver is.

Or telling them where it was but not quite fast enough for the jury of United, Liverpool and Arsenal fans

 

[cheekybids]

You may be right. We will see in a few months, one way or the other :)

I just know when I went through a case & you’d get to the next meeting & they would have another demand which was their legal right. & emotionally I knew it was bollocks my solicitor explained they have every right to do what they are doing so they’ll exercise it.
I fail to see how City can be found guilty if they have been providing evidence particularly when the evidence belongs to a third party.

 

[kaz7]

This case is happening to ruin us , it is affecting everything as it was designed to do, slandering us on the orders of the chabal , whatever happens we finally know that there has been a huge conspiracy against us

 

[blueballs84]

I call bullshit.
Khaldoon said we won't take the pinch for anyone.

If we are innocent what do we need to pay a "hefty fine" for?

I believe the bit about the massive rebuild though he used the word 'massive' so I'm dubious.

If it was just a fine, I expect it would be for the non-cooperation charges similar to what happened at CAS.

 

[argyle]

Thought this shite would be over by now.

Take these

 

[Zenmanc]

I think this has cast a pall over the team. I realize were amidst the biggest injury crisis in recent memory but until there's a definite decision on this I think we'll not be able to focus on the job of winning games.

 

[halfcenturyup]

I just know when I went through a case & you’d get to the next meeting & they would have another demand which was their legal right. & emotionally I knew it was bollocks my solicitor explained they have every right to do what they are doing so they’ll exercise it.
I fail to see how City can be found guilty if they have been providing evidence particularly when the evidence belongs to a third party.

Because the club will have provided it when it suited them?

Only read the rest of this if you are really interested. It's just a few thoughts.....



If this is about external evidence then I think it will boil down to the panel's interpretation of the rules. Guidance was included in 2020 (coincidentally) that the club had to make best efforts (or some such wording) to obtain third party information when requested. When the investigation started there was no such rule/guidance. So I imagine the club's position will be that they can't apply the 2020 guidance to an investigation started in 2018 and there was therefore no requirement to provide any third party information to the investigation. I imagine the PL's argument is that they can (remember the rumours from early 2024 that the club was challenging the application of new rules to earlier periods?), and that the fact that the club provided external evidence to the panel is proof they didn't make best efforts during the investigation.

The precise-wording finding of the Leicester case may help the club as well.

At the end of the day, the panel may well take the view, as CAS did, that if the club had provided the evidence earlier then there would have been no need for the disciplinary process at all and so the club has made a mockery of the PL's whole investigative process. The panel would naturally side with the PL in that case to discourage other clubs from withholding information in the future. I wouldn't be surprised by that at all.

As I say, just a few thoughts.

And all imh and poorly formed o, of course.