PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Roachy said:
Knickers too tight? There's nothing really different he could have said as a response, that was my point. It's standard PR. So happy you saw the press conference as well.
Click to expand...
A 'standard' response would be, 'we'll see what happens', or 'we're confident'. He specifically mentions his 9.5 year extension, basically saying that he thinks the charges are bullshit.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
As a broad principle harder to get an award of costs in those circumstances, yes, but will also depend on the extent and timing on the non cooperation, and the wider conduct of the PL.

If our non cooperation predates the charges, and following the disclosure of our evidence the PL carried on despite it providing irrefutable evidence that vindicated City, then the club surely, as an operation of the laws of natural justice, has to get a significant proportion of its costs from the point of disclosure onwards.

If, in those circumstances, any reasonable regulatory body would have pulled the thing at that point, then costs surely have to follow the event to that extent.
Click to expand...
If we have produced evidence of biassed dealings by the PL, we would probably not be found guilty of non co-op. Bigger costs for us then.
 
slbsn said:
There is a chance that the reasoned decisions are both held back to be released upon the conclusion of the sanction decision. I think this is what the FA did in the recent Nottingham Forest case.
Click to expand...
With the size and coverage of City’s case, don’t you think it would be very difficult to keep the “reasoned decisions” held back, given how much light is being shone on this case?

Once there is any “verdict,” the vacuum left by any withheld reasoning will be filled by all comers, don’t you think?

Regardless, it certainly feels like it’s all coming to a head and one side feels particularly confident while the other side seems a tad concerned…not that anyone knows the result yet!
 
moomba said:
Soft signals, hard signals. Just not worth getting carried away with anything you hear until the verdict comes out.

If it's a bad one, it will feel bad enough without having convinced yourself that we're going to be cleared. And even worse if you've started shooting your mouth off about how we're going to be cleared.

Hopefully not too long to wait now. Tuesdays good for me as I have a day off work.
Click to expand...
I shall give the PL a hand signal.
 
DJBusinesscake said:
A 'standard' response would be, 'we'll see what happens', or 'we're confident'. He specifically mentions his 9.5 year extension, basically saying that he thinks the charges are bullshit.
Click to expand...
Leaving the Haaland point to one side, I couldn't agree more that the charges are bullshit. I think most of us suspect this. I think the PL have acted at the behest of the usual suspect cartel clubs, once again probably as we all do.
 
TedofChume said:
I think it is arbitration

Rule X in the Premier League Handbook 22/23 states that it will be done in accordance with the Abitration Act 1996
Click to expand...
But technically they are suing us for breach of contract. Who cares what it’s called?
 
We are almost certainly getting done for non cooperation, I expect the club know that and don't give two F**KS about it. We have our reasons for the non co-op and we all know what they are. Of course we should appeal any fine just to piss the premier league off a bit more.
 
TedofChume said:
I think it is arbitration

Rule X in the Premier League Handbook 22/23 states that it will be done in accordance with the Abitration Act 1996
Click to expand...
It is a Disciplinary under rule W but I'd say for intents and purposes it is an arbitration. But I also agree that the parties will need at least a working week for the typo type checks. Simply can't be done quickly. I'm less convinced it will leak in that period - very, very few people will know.
 
Apart from both sides having a gentleman's agreement not to leak why would both / either of the sides want the agreement to continue?

I can understand the need for no leaks when commercial details are being considered but when it's all in the hands of the Panel anyway is it really necessary?
 
slbsn said:
www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk

Costs and damages - what Man City could get for beating 115 charges

A look at the millions that would be owed to Manchester City if they are cleared of the main charges levelled at them by the Premier League
www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk

I am confident this is correct:

“Whilst we know from the published Everton costs hearing that there is no restriction on the Independent Commission in terms of costs, it is likely to be asked to, and will, treat the proceedings akin to High Court commercial litigation," football finance expert Stefan Borson told the Manchester Evening News. "In doing so, the general rule is that it is fair for the unsuccessful party to pay the successful party’s costs. This is especially so where a party fails to prove serious allegations of fraud where courts generally award the highest percentage of recovery (known as indemnity costs). Likewise, a finding of fraud against City is likely to give rise to the Premier League getting the vast majority of its costs from City."The complexity can arise where, as in City’s case, there is a range of allegations and where the decision may not be binary. In those cases, the courts (and therefore the IC) will look, as a matter of substance and reality, who has 'won.'

"Then it considers whether, despite one party having won in the significant sense, there are any matters which the other party has succeeded on which took a significant amount of additional time and resource to contest. This might include the co-operation charges."From there it is for the party claiming costs to show that it’s costs claimed are reasonable and proportionate except if one side is awarded the indemnity costs as could be possible in this case."In summary, if City were to successfully defend all the substantive allegations regardless of the cooperation outcome, they could expect to recover 80-90% of their costs.”
Click to expand...
80% of our costs will be a fair amount. Pannick’s lunchtime wine is £350 per day. Then there is our solicitor’s spam sandwich.
 
Chris in London said:
There is no way the PL wouldn’t have leaked it
Click to expand...

You may be right, but you are so cynical for a lawyer :)

There have been no leaks at all about anything after the APT document being leaked, have there (other than the club leaking to speed up release of the judgment?). All very hush hush.
 
I wonder who at city would know after which time frames of the papers being sent to city.
Obviously people like khaldoon and soriano would know straight away but how long would it take to filter down?
Would pep, txiki/viana or danny Wilson know within 24 hours? Would the players or staff who work with the players? What about the media team?
 
Last edited:
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