PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

halfcenturyup said:
I looked at my watch. It was a minute past. A minute passed. Then, another minute passed swiftly past. And after a moment, another minute passed. I waited while a minute passed.

A minute passed. And another minute passed, followed swiftly by yet another, different minute. And then, a minute which seemed to last an hour, but was only a minute, passed.

A minute passed. Another minute passed. A further different minute. And another... and another. And another further different minute.

A minute passed......
Click to expand...
Did an owl hoot in a nearby copse?
 
halfcenturyup said:
I looked at my watch. It was a minute past. A minute passed. Then, another minute passed swiftly past. And after a moment, another minute passed. I waited while a minute passed.

A minute passed. And another minute passed, followed swiftly by yet another, different minute. And then, a minute which seemed to last an hour, but was only a minute, passed.

A minute passed. Another minute passed. A further different minute. And another... and another. And another further different minute.

A minute passed......
Click to expand...
Hello, and welcome to Dorchester, where a very good crowd has turned out to watch local boy Thomas Hardy write his new novel The Return of the Native on this very pleasant July morning. This will be his eleventh novel and the fifth of the very popular Wessex novels...
 
halfcenturyup said:
I looked at my watch. It was a minute past. A minute passed. Then, another minute passed swiftly past. And after a moment, another minute passed. I waited while a minute passed.

A minute passed. And another minute passed, followed swiftly by yet another, different minute. And then, a minute which seemed to last an hour, but was only a minute, passed.

A minute passed. Another minute passed. A further different minute. And another... and another. And another further different minute.

A minute passed......
Click to expand...
I wonder how many people know where that is from ?
 
StillBluessinceHydeRoad said:
Thanks to Stefan for his piece on "The Auditor in the Room" which is informative and very relevant to the possible outcome of our case - far more so than anything Delaney has to say or infact just about any other contribution to this thread recently.
Click to expand...
Thanks for recommending it, link to Stefan's substack article below:
stefanborson.substack.com

Manchester City and 115: The Auditor in the Room

The allegations against Manchester City have been building since 2014. When the Premier League filed 115 charges, what the auditors were required to do was no longer a matter of judgment
stefanborson.substack.com stefanborson.substack.com
 
i was moody enough to reply to some waste of a crap wank today

in response to .....
City got the biggest fine in UEFA's history. The worst offences were dismissed on technicalities (e.g., statute of limitations) or on different rules re sources of evidence - rules that don't apply re the PL charges.

i ranted ....
Almost everything in your statement is factually incorrect. You have been brainwashed by the media spin and hatred.

The Fine:
City did NOT get the biggest fine in history. UEFA tried to fine them €30M, but CAS slashed it to €10M solely for non-cooperation. City deliberately withheld documents because UEFA insiders were constantly leaking confidential case details to the press. City refused to trust a biased process, opting instead to save their evidence for an independent tribunal. Furthermore, UEFA has handed out much bigger FFP fines to other clubs.

The "Technicality" Myth:
The worst offences (the Etihad deal worth £220.5M) were NOT dismissed on a technicality. CAS fully investigated those years and explicitly ruled there was NO EVIDENCE of financial cheating. Time-barring only applied to the much smaller Etisalat deal (£30M).

The Evidence Rules:
CAS didn't throw out the hacked emails; they actually reviewed them. Their conclusion was that even with the leaked emails, UEFA had zero proof of actual wrongdoing.

The Premier League Comparison & "More Emails" Myth:

Same Old Leaks:
The "new" emails are from the exact same 2018 hack. UEFA's own lawyers reviewed the second batch right after the trial and admitted they weren't strong enough to win an appeal.

Snippets vs. Proof:
Out-of-context snippets of staff discussing ideas are not proof of execution. The PL has no time limits, but that only re-opens the tiny Etisalat deal. The main Etihad deal was already cleared, and changing leagues doesn't magically turn internal chat fragments into proof of fraud.



strangely it doesn't make me feel better
 
Lord Blue said:
in response to .....
City got the biggest fine in UEFA's history. The worst offences were dismissed on technicalities (e.g., statute of limitations) or on different rules re sources of evidence - rules that don't apply re the PL charges.
The "Technicality" Myth:
The worst offences (the Etihad deal worth £220.5M) were NOT dismissed on a technicality. CAS fully investigated those years and explicitly ruled there was NO EVIDENCE of financial cheating. Time-barring only applied to the much smaller Etisalat deal (£30M).
Click to expand...
Not sure time barring could be characterised as a legal technicality, and certainly not a loophole as it has been described as by legal dilettantes in the press on a number of occasions.

Any limitation period is as much a part of UEFA’s rules as those we were accused of breaching. Certainly no legal professional of repute would ever refer to a limitation period as a technicality. They are a fundamental part of how civil legal disputes operate and to fail to spot them is a cardinal sin that could not be excused or explained to any disciplinary or complaints body, or to any indemnity insurer, as a technicality.

To describe it as such in those circumstances would invite nothing but ridicule.
 
Lord Blue said:
i was moody enough to reply to some waste of a crap wank today

in response to .....
City got the biggest fine in UEFA's history. The worst offences were dismissed on technicalities (e.g., statute of limitations) or on different rules re sources of evidence - rules that don't apply re the PL charges.

i ranted ....
Almost everything in your statement is factually incorrect. You have been brainwashed by the media spin and hatred.

The Fine:
City did NOT get the biggest fine in history. UEFA tried to fine them €30M, but CAS slashed it to €10M solely for non-cooperation. City deliberately withheld documents because UEFA insiders were constantly leaking confidential case details to the press. City refused to trust a biased process, opting instead to save their evidence for an independent tribunal. Furthermore, UEFA has handed out much bigger FFP fines to other clubs.

The "Technicality" Myth:
The worst offences (the Etihad deal worth £220.5M) were NOT dismissed on a technicality. CAS fully investigated those years and explicitly ruled there was NO EVIDENCE of financial cheating. Time-barring only applied to the much smaller Etisalat deal (£30M).

The Evidence Rules:
CAS didn't throw out the hacked emails; they actually reviewed them. Their conclusion was that even with the leaked emails, UEFA had zero proof of actual wrongdoing.

The Premier League Comparison & "More Emails" Myth:

Same Old Leaks:
The "new" emails are from the exact same 2018 hack. UEFA's own lawyers reviewed the second batch right after the trial and admitted they weren't strong enough to win an appeal.

Snippets vs. Proof:
Out-of-context snippets of staff discussing ideas are not proof of execution. The PL has no time limits, but that only re-opens the tiny Etisalat deal. The main Etihad deal was already cleared, and changing leagues doesn't magically turn internal chat fragments into proof of fraud.



strangely it doesn't make me feel better
Click to expand...
You’re arguing against people that don’t think we’re guilty (I honestly don’t think there are many that do) but WANT us to be guilty (this is the vast majority and why the most vocal all happen to support Arsenal, United or Liverpool).
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Not sure time barring could be characterised as a legal technicality, and certainly not a loophole as it has been described as by legal dilettantes in the press on a number of occasions.

Any limitation period is as much a part of UEFA’s rules as those we were accused of breaching. Certainly no legal professional of repute would ever refer to a limitation period as a technicality. They are a fundamental part of how civil legal disputes operate and to fail to spot them is a cardinal sin that could not be excused or explained to any disciplinary or complaints body, or to any indemnity insurer, as a technicality.

To describe it as such in those circumstances would invite nothing but ridicule.
Click to expand...

What is your view on whether the Limitation Act applies to the PL rulebook?

This isn't a trick question, there seems to be some differing opinions on here these days. Just trying to straighten it out in my mind ....
 
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