You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules
- Thread starter ayrshire_blue
- Start date
GaudinoMotors
Well-Known Member
It would need to be unequivical though.No idea mate. And I think Stefan has already stated (or at least posited) that these don’t necessarily require unanimity…
Difficult if there's a dissenting judgment I'd imagine.
SilverFox2
Well-Known Member
There are at least 115 separate charges. Each one will need 3 separate decisions or is this incorrect?It would need to be unequivical though.
Difficult if there's a dissenting judgment I'd imagine.
Roy Munson
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 1,204
It's definitely attention grabbing stuff.
Glad you like the username it brings together 2 things that have given me enjoyment in times gone by; watching (the other) Kevin play and reading fantasy books
I stumbled across this the other day. I had no idea Steve Jackson and Ian Livingstone were both from Manchester.
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
Not necessarily. If the panel were to agree that Etihad and other Abu Dhabi-based sponsors weren't related parties (as an example, assuming that's part of the charges) then I doubt they'd have to make that decision 50+ times, to cover multiple years and rules.There are at least 115 separate charges. Each one will need 3 separate decisions or is this incorrect?
It's highly doubtful that they'd decide they were a related party in 2010. but not in 2015. Or they were a related party for the purposes of Rule X.1 but not for X.2.
SilverFox2
Well-Known Member
Thanks for reply, on the point of multiple charge for same "offence", would the Panel be able to comment on how this has been allowed to drift year upon year.Not necessarily. If the panel were to agree that Etihad and other Abu Dhabi-based sponsors weren't related parties (as an example, assuming that's part of the charges) then I doubt they'd have to make that decision 50+ times, to cover multiple years and rules.
It's highly doubtful that they'd decide they were a related party in 2010. but not in 2015. Or they were a related party for the purposes of Rule X.1 but not for X.2.
If they knew it was an offence yesteryear what possible reason is there to allow it to continue?
Unless of course it is part of allegations to deliberately clog up the Appeal System.
Last edited:
GaudinoMotors
Well-Known Member
? No idea. Makes sense though.There are at least 115 separate charges. Each one will need 3 separate decisions or is this incorrect?
Above my pay grade.
Centurions
Well-Known Member
You think the PL will be able to stop 3 KC's making pertinent comments? That's the bit I'm looking forward to the most after the actual verdicts.Thanks for reply, on the point of multiple charge for same "offence", would the Panel be able to comment on how this has been allowed to drift year upon year.
If they knew it was an offence yesteryear what possible reason is there to allow it to continue?
Paul lakes knee
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 15 May 2012
- Messages
- 154
That is exactly why! Fair play.Bœuf, Porc, Mouton, Coq
Probably comes from the age of the Normans where the rich spoke French. The lower classes, Old English speaking, would have eaten chicken and other fowl more often due to cost.
Centurions
Well-Known Member
Given we're nearing 12,000 pages in old money, I wouldn't hold it against anyone asking (not that you'll likely miss it).I love it when this thread goes off on a random tangent. Ten pages used up in quick time, followed by a glut of posters not bothering to check, asking if the decision has dropped.
That said, has it dropped today?
Surely each charge just needs one decision which the panel have to agree on (unanimously or by majority). Imagine all three writing up separate decisions on every single charge and then trying to work out an overall judgement for each one, it would be impossible.? No idea. Makes sense though.
Above my pay grade.
In my head the panel sit in a room (online maybe) and talk, discuss the evidence and write up a majority agreement for each charge. Might be completely wrong, but for them to all write individual decisions on each charge just sounds ludicrous. Then again, nothing would suprise me with this.
SilverFox2
Well-Known Member
Thanks for reply. Sorry I did edit my post to mention the inconvenience it causes the KCs so hopefully annoy them as well.You think the PL will be able to stop 3 KC's making pertinent comments? That's the bit I'm looking forward to the most after the actual verdicts.
If "they" is the Premier League, at the point the charges were brought they were all historical so they didn't allow them to continue rather they had only just discovered them.Thanks for reply, on the point of multiple charge for same "offence", would the Panel be able to comment on how this has been allowed to drift year upon year.
If they knew it was an offence yesteryear what possible reason is there to allow it to continue?
Unless of course it is part of allegations to deliberately clog up the Appeal System.
Citizen of Legoland
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 15 Jan 2013
- Messages
- 11,966
I have to thank Melvyn Bragg and/or Bill Bryson for that knowledge. I think it was the former in his book The Adventure of English.That is exactly why! Fair play.
chesterbells
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 15 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 26,890
Well, 10 o’clock approaches. Must admit, since the post from TH a while back saying 10am would be the likely release time, I find myself heading to the PL website around that time on a regular basis now.
SilverFox2
Well-Known Member
If we had been Arsenal or Man I and a new regime came in to vet them I would agree with you but we have had multiple eyes on us for years so perhaps your reasoning is unlikely but thanks for reply.If "they" is the Premier League, at the point the charges were brought they were all historical so they didn't allow them to continue rather they had only just discovered them.
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 14,933
You think the PL will be able to stop 3 KC's making pertinent comments? That's the bit I'm looking forward to the most after the actual verdicts.
I think the way they write the award is just "The commission finds ....", there will be no discussion of individual opinions or even an indication of unanimity or dissention. At least, iirc, there hasn't been in previous awards.
OK but even accepting your conspiracy theory you said:-If we had been Arsenal or Man I and a new regime came in to vet them I would agree with you but we have had multiple eyes on us for years so perhaps your reasoning is unlikely but thanks for reply.
"If they knew it was an offence yesteryear what possible reason is there to allow it to continue?"
Apart from bringing charges as they did, how do you think the PL could have stopped it from continuing? Your not making much sense TBH. Are you simply saying we should have been charged earlier? Not sure how that would help us anyway.
Centurions
Well-Known Member
The allegations run from 2009(2008?) through to 2018 which is when the emails were dropped by Der Spiegel. I still have no idea where that leaves us with 2018 on if we're found guilty on some charges (excluding Mancini ect).Thanks for reply, on the point of multiple charge for same "offence", would the Panel be able to comment on how this has been allowed to drift year upon year.
If they knew it was an offence yesteryear what possible reason is there to allow it to continue?
Unless of course it is part of allegations to deliberately clog up the Appeal System.
Centurions
Well-Known Member
At CAS they had "The panel finds..." comments, I didn't mean individual comments.I think the way they write the award is just "The commission finds ....", there will be no discussion of individual opinions or even an indication of unanimity or dissention. At least, iirc, there hasn't been in previous awards.