PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

slbsn said:
Seriously, how do you explain this incredible story has only got to you and not been published anywhere? It is clearly the biggest sports story of the decade (City have won, PL have hidden it, PL want to get rid of Masters without telling the shareholders the result (because they can't tell the clubs for fear of a leak), the appeal process is somehow suspended or there won't be any appeal by the PL etc). You have to accept this is an incredible story if true. So how come only you have it. In the entire World? And you weren't even told it confidentially because you have been prepared to say it here. And if the person who told you, didn't require confidentiality, why haven't they told other people?
Click to expand...
What if masters got in touch with Khaldon, and said I'm in the shit,
Can we come to some agreement.
Who would know? Apart from him and Abu Dhabi
 
johnny crossan said:
I have no sources but common sense tells me 8 months after the hearing was concluded and seven months after the panel reached its verdict they are not the only ones who know the outcome. The two parties must know the ruling and have colluded to delay its publication for the losing side to put its affairs in order. That's the PL btw, if City had lost it would have celebrated by the cartel on New Years' Day.
Click to expand...

Why would the owners allow or even care about a back stabbing pl and getting their affairs in order?
 
Interesting debate with some subtle digs at times.

Tell you what I know…football governance loves to hide behind their own rule book. If the league and city had their way, the report would not see the light of day.

The league fucked up by not putting this to bed after CAS gave them a way out.

Rumours will always swirl. Khaldoon and pep know, know one is going to tell me any different no matter their legal or financial or ball boy background.

It doesn’t have to always sound like a conspiracy. The club say nothing until it’s in their best interest to do so. The league leaks like a faulty tap. A win for them would be well known.

Still think they would all prefer it stays behind closed doors. 115 made that not possible.

The files will be released in 20 years. All we will get now is a version that is retracted to death or until a German hacker gets back into our system.
 
Churchlawtonblue said:
Really ? Lol. So its not the very top, it's second hand? I'm sorry but when someone cuts in and says someone else is wrong but provides no evidence apart from a very definite statement. They are putting themselves in the firing line for further queries are they not?

Out of interest where would you say the very top of the information tree is on this subject?
Click to expand...
Did PB provide evidence on what he is saying? You can't ask someone to provide evidence but then completely believe the person who started this.
 
slbsn said:
Both of these were about release of the decision not a delay post release save for the one scenario we discussed where only the liability bit was done pending a sanction hearing. The scenario painted in my comment above was one where there is no further hearing. In that case the rule is clear. Once the decision is communicated to the parties and published by the Panel (the timing of which is subject to discussion), then it is to be released as soon as practicable.

I don't believe I have suggested that once the parties have the decision they can agree a release schedule for this beyond rule W.49 (as contrasted with the equivalent provisions in Rule X). If I have, let me know. These quotes are that as far as can see.

I would add as soon as practicable builds in some 1-5 day flex post publication by the panel. Not 3 months.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I am being a bit slow this morning. Having trouble with release, communication and publication. Trying to explain to @Damocles last night why I think Sam fucking Lee is a **** has had an effect :)

"Once the decision is communicated to the parties and published by the Panel (the timing of which is subject to discussion), then it is to be released as soon as practicable."

Does this mean the panel can "communicate" their decision to the parties and then the two parties can discuss with the panel when the judgment can be "published" to the parties, after which "publication" it must made available to the public reasonably quickly?

Or is the "communication" of the decision and the "publication" by the panel to the parties simultaneous and the whole thing open to discussion about timing?

Excuse the quotation marks. They just reflect my confusion over release, communication and publication.

If you could explain it clearly as you would to someone mentally challenged, because that is how I am feeling at the moment on this whole topic, I would appreciate it.
 
johnny crossan said:
I have no sources but common sense tells me 8 months after the hearing was concluded and seven months after the panel reached its verdict they are not the only ones who know the outcome. The two parties must know the ruling and have colluded to delay its publication for the losing side to put its affairs in order. That's the PL btw, if City had lost it would have celebrated by the cartel on New Years' Day.
Click to expand...
Yeah if that's what your common sense telling you, you should be worried.
 
Well, I can certainly see the sweetener for City being a change in the appointment and recruiting process for a new FA head, and whilst the IFR currently being assembled won't have involvement directly in such a process, it's a good driver for showing that change in the way of operating, including transparency, is required at the top of the FA.

Clearly there is the feeling within city's management team, based on past comments, that the way we have been treated is not balanced and is fueled by an unhealthy pressure from certain rivals.

Let's be clear, we all need a healthy FA and Premier League operating not only to keep each club in line, but to provide the arena for our success and our game, it's just advantageous to us all. But clearly the current set up does not do that. It could easily be argued that certain clubs have pushed their own agendas in the face of facts and common sense to see City damaged or even removed, and this has caused huge embarrassment for the game in England, and huge costs.

If City walk out of this with both the recognition that the current setup is flawed and detrimental to certain clubs, whilst favouring others, and will see reformation and change to address that, then it could be the best kind of victory we could hope for. Nobody really wins, but in such a scenario we could say that there are certainly some, red-faced, losers.
 
Obviously I have no idea whether the club have been officially told the outcome or not. But, there is a middle ground between having been actually told the result, and knowing what the result is going to be. It is feasible that as the proceedings went on and the evidence was heard, that the fine legal minds on both sides could clearly see where the case was going, and by the end, the City team could say with (near) certainty that the case against us just hadn’t been made. Hence the obvious air of confidence transmitted ever since.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Sorry, I am being a bit slow this morning. Having trouble with release, communication and publication. Trying to explain to @Damocles last night why I think Sam fucking Lee is a **** has had an effect :)

"Once the decision is communicated to the parties and published by the Panel (the timing of which is subject to discussion), then it is to be released as soon as practicable."

Does this mean the panel can "communicate" their decision to the parties and then the two parties can discuss with the panel when the judgment can be "published" to the parties, after which "publication" it must made available to the public reasonably quickly?

Or is the "communication" of the decision and the "publication" by the panel to the parties simultaneous and the whole thing open to discussion about timing?

Excuse the quotation marks. They just reflect my confusion over release, communication and publication.

If you could explain it clearly as you would to someone mentally challenged, because that is how I am feeling at the moment on this whole topic, I would appreciate it.
Click to expand...
I think the parties could (but may well not) write to the panel and say:

1) due to football diary issues, the parties request that any decision is not released between x and y and, if finalised by the Panel, is held over to z at the earliest
2) both parties agree that they would, say, like to receive a draft decision for x days (say 7) for reading, minor changes etc before being handed down in final form. I'd expect the draft from the panel to look like a court draft headed in a similar way to this example I received recently:

IN CONFIDENCE​

This is a draft Decision sent to the parties to enable them to submit typing corrections and other obvious errors. This draft is confidential to the parties and their representatives and accordingly neither the draft itself nor its substance may be disclosed to any other person or used in the public domain. The parties must take all reasonable steps to ensure that its confidentiality is preserved. No action is to be taken (other than internally) in response to the draft before the Decision has been communicated to the parties in final form.


This feels possible. If the parties write in agreement, the panel is more likely to follow such requests.

But I don't see how once it is finalised and handed down ("communicated" to the parties or "published" to the parties) in final form, the PL rules demand release ("published" to the outside world) within a few days (as soon as practicable) and if they have had if for a week in draft (lets say), it would need to go the same day as being handed down in final form. Both parties are paranoid about leaks anyway so once they have the decision even in draft the clock is ticking.

The Everton and Forest cases didn't even give the parties very long to make comments - they had a few hours. Again because of leak paranoia.

Like Everton and Forest, it is absolutely possible that the decision is received in draft, handed down to the parties in final form and published to the world on the same day - I think it is unlikely with such a long document but it just will depend on the leak paranoia.

The one complexity here is if the first hearing is liability only ie Part 1, with a sanction hearing to follow, perhaps the parties could construe the PL rules to say no public release of the written decision is required until Part 2 is decided. I doubt it but not impossible. But obviously if there is to be no sanction hearing to follow this proviso wouldn't exist.
 
Whether or not said:
Obviously I have no idea whether the club have been officially told the outcome or not. But, there is a middle ground between having been actually told the result, and knowing what the result is going to be. It is feasible that as the proceedings went on and the evidence was heard, that the fine legal minds on both sides could clearly see where the case was going, and by the end, the City team could say with (near) certainty that the case against us just hadn’t been made. Hence the obvious air of confidence transmitted ever since.
Click to expand...
i think thats where were at, the club will have an idea, a good idea from Pannicks post hearing report to the club, not 100% but very close being within 5% of the expected outcome, this would have been made clear by Pannick within days of the hearing ending so the club has been aware for quite some time, the transfer activity and other business dealings at the club during this period does suggest were clear and have won
 
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