PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

johnevans said:
View attachment 159768Agree entirely.. I have the above in my phone gallery as evidence when pointing out to fans of other clubs the error of their ways when they say we 'cheated' and 'misled' the CAS arbitration. And I also have the photo below to remind me to channel my 'Inner Dave Mackay' whenever I do so.. I look forward to having similar evidence when this farrago with the PL is finally done and dusted..View attachment 159769
Click to expand...

spider blue said:
What an iconic photograph that is.
Click to expand...

It's superb, isn't it? What really tickles me about it, though, is Bremner, with his “What me, guv? Wouldn't hurt a fly…”
Dave Mackay makes me think of Gene Hackman in many roles, but especially French Connection 1.
Oh and El Tel looking on, thinking, “Put two Scotsmen together…”
 
slbsn said:
This has been gone through before. The club can appeal any IC decision (on liability or sanction). It can do so for any reason under Rule W but it is inevitable that the IC's factual findings will be hard to unwind - if they find Mr X an unreliable witness, that is it. The Appeal is not going to recall Mr X for re-cross examination - City will be stuck with that finding. Where the IC has got the law wrong or added extra sanctions even though, say, the PL never invited a particular finding on that point (effectively what happened in Everton 1), that can be challenged. Likewise, a wholly disproportionate sanction could also be challenged. In that case, like Everton, you could expect City to throw every argument about sanction you can think of at the Appeal Board but probably still have to accept the IC's factual findings.

The Rule W appeal decision is final. Save for Rule X.

Rule X.37 says: Subject to the provisions of sections 67 to 71 of the Act, the award shall be final and binding on the parties and there shall be no right of appeal. There shall be no right of appeal on a point of law under section 69 of the Act. In the event that a party to arbitration under this Section X challenges the award, whether in the English High Court or any other forum, it shall ensure that the League is provided with a copy of any written pleadings filed and/or evidence adduced as soon as reasonably practicable after their/its filing.

In simple terms this is a very limited final appeal (CAS not possible) - Sections 67, 68, 70, and 71 of the Arbitration Act 1996 allow challenges to an arbitration award based on lack of jurisdiction (s.67), serious procedural irregularity causing injustice (s.68), procedural rules and time limits for bringing such challenges (s.70), and jurisdictional objections by non-parties affected by the award (s.71). It is really unlikely any of those could be said to apply to City's case.

Note that even if the Rule W got the law completely wrong, the parties are stuck with it
Click to expand...
Have I understood you correctly?

1. City can appeal ANY IC decision under Rule W to the Appeal Board.
2.The Rule W appeal decision can be appealed under Rule X to an external body I.e. in the High Court or another outside forum.

Why is an appeal under Rule X unlikely to be successful? For example time limits for bringing challenges can be a subjective issue.
 
johnevans said:
View attachment 159768Agree entirely.. I have the above in my phone gallery as evidence when pointing out to fans of other clubs the error of their ways when they say we 'cheated' and 'misled' the CAS arbitration. And I also have the photo below to remind me to channel my 'Inner Dave Mackay' whenever I do so.. I look forward to having similar evidence when this farrago with the PL is finally done and dusted..View attachment 159769
Click to expand...
I’ll enjoy gloating. And if they say we “paid them off” I’ll just wink & smile - followed by my hand with 4 fingers up
 
johnevans said:
View attachment 159768Agree entirely.. I have the above in my phone gallery as evidence when pointing out to fans of other clubs the error of their ways when they say we 'cheated' and 'misled' the CAS arbitration. And I also have the photo below to remind me to channel my 'Inner Dave Mackay' whenever I do so.. I look forward to having similar evidence when this farrago with the PL is finally done and dusted..View attachment 159769
Click to expand...
Fantastic photograph, but as regards the UEFA comment, I can't get over the fact that nobody raised how ludicrous the original financial punishment (ie fine, 30m) was!! Even the resultant 10m(!!) was, and is, completely exorbitant - put into context of relative wrist-slaps for countries whose fans are persistently racist and aggressively so toward opposing players (50k fine), or teams who are bang to rights over fiscal skulduggery (less than 0.5m fines) but City are done for E10m for 'non-cooperation' in a fucking witch hunt, it's disgusting. We 'take a pinch' (some fuckin pinch, that) to put it to bed, but no, the media scum maintain the got away with it allegations, imagine the umbrage if the red-tops had been the target club, but we know that could never happen...
 
Lovebitesandeveryfing said:
It's superb, isn't it? What really tickles me about it, though, is Bremner, with his “What me, guv? Wouldn't hurt a fly…”
Dave Mackay makes me think of Gene Hackman in many roles, but especially French Connection 1.
Oh and El Tel looking on, thinking, “Put two Scotsmen together…”
Click to expand...
And the ref's thinking "I don't want to have to get between these two if it kicks off"
 
train man said:
Fantastic photograph, but as regards the UEFA comment, I can't get over the fact that nobody raised how ludicrous the original financial punishment (ie fine, 30m) was!! Even the resultant 10m(!!) was, and is, completely exorbitant - put into context of relative wrist-slaps for countries whose fans are persistently racist and aggressively so toward opposing players (50k fine), or teams who are bang to rights over fiscal skulduggery (less than 0.5m fines) but City are done for E10m for 'non-cooperation' in a fucking witch hunt, it's disgusting. We 'take a pinch' (some fuckin pinch, that) to put it to bed, but no, the media scum maintain the got away with it allegations, imagine the umbrage if the red-tops had been the target club, but we know that could never happen...
Click to expand...
They (CAS) stated the fine being so high was because of our club wealth. In other words, we can afford it.
 
BerkshireBlue said:
nice but wrong as it recurrence so the maths is way off
Click to expand...
No it isn't.

The algorithm predicts word usage through higher dimensional space training with additional weighting. The values given in the vector weren't supposed to be reality but illustrative. The "equations" given are trying to explain how the initial change from randomness to movement in that space occurs. This really is how they function.

You could argue that there so much processing after the movement in 1.3k dimensional space that it isn't illustrative of the final outcome and I'd agree, but calling it wrong seems extremely harsh. It tried to describe something specific and it did it without further context.
 
Damocles said:
It's a posh version of an auto predictor that your phone keyboard uses. It doesn't understand words or questions. It just tells you the statistically most likely word to come after this one, in the context of the sentence. There is no knowledge, no comprehension, no understanding.

I'll let it explain:



ChatGPT gave those answers because it used Bluemoon in its training data and that's what people on Bluemoon said, essentially.

Here's how it works for all you math fans.
Click to expand...
Once it’s written down like that, if you read it, it’s just a very good prediction processor.
But as we know, some of the most powerful computers in the world are built just for weather prediction…
 
How will it go if City are found not guilty?

We've already seen it play out before. Why would this time be any different?

It's always controlled by the media because most people either aren't thinking for themselves or they only take in information that re-enforces their existing beliefs(confirmation bias). edit: The former example(neutral/non-cartel fans who are convinced City are guilty) you could argue can't be expected to be as invested as City fans are and the blame lies more with the media coverage which has had next to no balance.

When City took UEFA's verdict to CAS, it was said City had no right(when it was exactly their right). They basically argued City should just accept it or be made to accept it, in so many words. If I remember right, this is what emboldened the hateful 9 to write a letter of complaint, which argued the sanctions should be upheld while City are appealing(presumably because they felt City had to be guilty). A ridiculous reaction, with blinkered reasoning.

When it turned out UEFA didn't have the evidence their verdict legally required, the MSM latched onto time barring on some of the smaller sponsorship deals and called it a technicality. A sad day for football they said, it was all City's fault and their fancy lawyers. Clutching at straws with petty/arbitrary 'they still accepted the fine for non-cooperation though, why did they do that if they were innocent. eh? eh?' quips.

Some of them clearly read the report but chose only to cherry pick the points that supported their anti-city narrative. How can you cover a report in your article and ignore pretty much all of the conclusion and still call yourself a professional journalist? Failing to mention Etihad wasn't timebarred, that CAS agreed the NYT leaks were concerning and too much of a cooincidence to not take seriously(but ultimately not their jurisdiction). The multiple instances of 'there was no evidence' should have established a pattern on how the time-barred issues would likely have followed.... And THAT is probably why they chose to leave any mention of those out of their coverage. So they could still make the claim 'Ah the time barred stuff would have done it'. Some were simultaneously arguing UEFA messed up and let City off the hook, but their judgement was still more trustworthy than that of CAS. The higher authority with vastly more experience in sports arbitration and law. It all seems very deliberate in hindsight.

We saw similar when City challenged APT(twice).

Who do City think they are? City want to remove any form of FMV. This will be the end of football. This will destroy the PL. This will mean clubs can sign whatever deals they like for whatever value they like. This is all to get away with the 115. etc

95% bullshit but they reported it all anyway because their industry allows them to do what they like.

Same again when the verdicts came, 'The PL won... Oh wait, City won but the PL were right really... City's pesky lawyers again'.

The only way it will be different, is if City handle the press differently this time around, because expecting them to cover things fairly(with journalistic integrity, maturity, balance etc), will only have one outcome. A series of emotional red cartel fanboy rants, that could have come from rawk/redcafe/reddit/twitter, written at 3am.
 
Last edited:
mancboy said:
Said it before and ill say it again but until i see HMRC or the police knocking at our doors im not even in the least bit concerned, to surmise that members of a foreign royal family, the chinese government, one of the biggest hedge funds in the entire world, one of the biggest airlines in the world, plus multiple prominent sportsmen and businessman, plus 3 of the pre eminent audit companies all committed wide scale fraud in order to help a football club who with the best will in the world doesnt rank in their top 50 investments in terms of monetary value is mental thinking.
Click to expand...
Once again Mancboy you've nailed it.

I do enjoy reading your posts; but for the love of God please use the occasional full stop. I haven't got the lung capacity to read them in one go.
 
Damocles said:
No it isn't.

The algorithm predicts word usage through higher dimensional space training with additional weighting. The values given in the vector weren't supposed to be reality but illustrative. The "equations" given are trying to explain how the initial change from randomness to movement in that space occurs. This really is how they function.

You could argue that there so much processing after the movement in 1.3k dimensional space that it isn't illustrative of the final outcome and I'd agree, but calling it wrong seems extremely harsh. It tried to describe something specific and it did it without further context.
Click to expand...
WtAF!
 
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