115(+15) vs the world
- Thread starter MomoWASright
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
The most annoying thing will be, if it’s unfavourable, City will appeal, which goes to Appeals Tribunal.
If that’s unfavourable, City then go to High Court or something.
Not sure where they go after that, but they’ll try somewhere.
So, they just kick the can further down the road, and each decision, even if unfavourable will likely water things down, so that it’ll take years and eventually result in a fine that they’ll never pay.
Best thing that could happen is they’re found guilty and suspended for all football activities pending an appeal outcome with no recourse to compensation if the decision is reversed - so they can take as long as they want to appeal.
I’m sure none of that’s legal, but feck ‘em, they should have been suspended the minute they refused to cooperate.
If that’s unfavourable, City then go to High Court or something.
Not sure where they go after that, but they’ll try somewhere.
So, they just kick the can further down the road, and each decision, even if unfavourable will likely water things down, so that it’ll take years and eventually result in a fine that they’ll never pay.
Best thing that could happen is they’re found guilty and suspended for all football activities pending an appeal outcome with no recourse to compensation if the decision is reversed - so they can take as long as they want to appeal.
I’m sure none of that’s legal, but feck ‘em, they should have been suspended the minute they refused to cooperate.
In terms of appeals I think it goes PL appeals process, then potentially to Court of Arbitration for Sport, but their jurisdiction over the Premier League is completely untested AFAIK, so that may not be an option. There's also a judicial review within the UK courts, which would only examine the legal process was fair, rather than looking at the content of the trial. As you say, the longer they can drag it on, and spin anything they can into a 'win', the better is will be for City. Their fans will lap up whatever take the Saudi's choose.
I don’t think it can go to CAS and yes my understanding is that no new info could be introduced on appeal, and that whatever appeals were possible would be mostly on procedural process.
The argument City will likely revert to if the lose, is like their APT argument, that effectively the rules aren’t fit for purpose so any judgement is irrelevant as the rules aren’t “legal”.
But I’m no lawyer, so who knows.
Nope
I think it could be broken down into sections. There’s stuff in there about wrongful transfers of youth players. That should mean transfer bans. Falsifying accounts or rather overinflated intragroup transactions would be a points deduction, possibly backdated too. The failing to cooperate will be financial penalties but could also influence the severity of any points deductions.
I’d just kick the cunts out of the league and never let them back in.
I’d just kick the cunts out of the league and never let them back in.
I'm no lawyer, but I know where to find the PL's rules. Long post on legal stuff by someone who isn't a lawyer, but is a quite good layman.
Firstly, PL rules are in the handbook which is publicly available here:
Premier League Publications, Reports, Bulletins & Announcements
Download Premier League reports, bulletins and announcements in PDF format, on the official website of the Premier League.
www.premierleague.com
There are expedited procedures for PSR cases, designed to get them resolved by the end of the season. They are in Appendix 1 to the rules.
They go firstly to a "Commission" for adjudication.
Then they can be appealed to the "Appeal Board".
All of that will done within the season following the breach (as with Everton last year).
Following the appeal decision, the rules provide that "The League and Clubs recognise and agree that... any Appeal Decision will save in exceptional circumstances remain in full force and effect pending resolution of any attempt to challenge it in arbitration". In practical terms, if arbitration is requested and the team would otherwise be relegated I think that would qualify as "exceptional circumstances".
In City's case, the expedited process in the above rules won't apply, but the process through Commission and Appeal board should be the same, just more drawn out.
Turning to arbitration, this is covered in Rule X. Firstly, Clubs commit to using the PL's arbitration process and no other (X.2.4). By being admitted as shareholders to the Premier League, City have signed up to this, whether they like it or not. Where arbitration is called upon following an Appeal board decision, there are limited grounds:
- the appeal board exceeded its powers
- fraud, malice, bad faith
- procedural error (has to be significant, not minor points of order)
- perverse interpretation of the law
- a self-evidently stupid decision
There is the possibility to introduce new documents.
The more significant point, for me, which could go in City's favour, is X.18.4,a procedural provision which covers "whether strict rules of evidence will apply and how the admissibility, relevance or weight of any material submitted... shall be determined". This is the first point in the entire process where City could argue that the Football Leaks emails should not be used in evidence as they were hacked. Up to this point, the rules specifically provide that any evidence is admissible, regardless of its source, provided it can be shown to be reliable.
So one way it could play out:
Commission - finds against City, imposes big sanctions
Appeal - nah lads, you're having a laugh, decision upheld
Arbitration - yeah, it's a bit harsh that you got done because the PL saw evidence that you held but refused to provide to them, appeal up-held, as you were.
A lot will turn on the Arbitration Panel's decision, but IMO they SHOULD uphold the earlier decisions on the basis that if City had provided the information requested by the Premier League, they would have still been found guilty and the decision would not have been challengeable in arbitration on the basis of inadmissible evidence. The evidence, even if illegally obtained, should still be admissible since the alternative evidence, had it been legally obtained, would have been identical. And the reason the PL didn't have the admissible evidence is that City refused to comply with its requests to provide it. i.e. this email, which was hacked, is exactly the same as the email you should have given us but failed to do so (arguably putting you in contempt of process).
Post arbitration, the rules state (X.37) "Subject to the provisions of sections 67-71 of the Act, the award shall be binding on the parties and there shall be no right of appeal".
Sections "67-71 of the Act" refers to the Arbitration Act 1996. The grounds for appeal are therefore:
67 - challenge to the jurisdiction of the arbitration panel - don't think that's up for debate, it's a specialist panel.
68 - serious irregularity - vague basis of challenge, but this is basically requiring professional incompetence or fraud by the panel, which really shouldn't arise given the seniority and reputation of the lawyers who'll be involved.
69 - point of law - the PL's rules provide that no appeal may be made on these grounds - the previous panels have the right to adjudicate on law.
70&71 - these are procedural matters, not grounds for appeal.
So at the end of the PL process, the only grounds for appeal are 67 and 68 above, and I think they are highly unlikely.
There is no reference to the right to appeal to CAS, in fact it is essentially denied. So they'd have to appeal firstly that they should be allowed to appeal to CAS and, if successful, they would then appeal to CAS.
So there is scope to drag it on for a long, long time, with ever diminishing likelihood of success. Frankly if they don't manage to persuade an arbitration panel on inadmissible evidence (because I think it's that evidence that will damn them) then I don't see them getting an adverse decision over-turned. So fingers crossed that the Commission gets it right in the next few weeks (assuming rumours of a March decision are correct).
No.
City might be fucked if he panel goes against them.
Nothing will happen. There might be an initial judgement which will be appealed. Then there will be a secondary judgement which could possibly be appealed. And so on. By the time this all happens, everyone who knew about it will be dead and no-one else will give 2 shits. Forest Green Rovers will probably be European Champions by then after a Saudi takeover in 2067.
Seems like everyone on twitter thinks they'll get away with it.
Hence why SKY has asked their pundits to "stick to the facts and avoid jumping to conclusions".
Man C is a cash cow for the EPL and integrity is not getting in the way of that.
Relegated with all of their players most likely going for free?
Nah, I don't see it happening.
The verdict will probably say that the EPL didn't manage to prove anything, however Man C will be guilty of non-cooperation or something like that.
Hence why SKY has asked their pundits to "stick to the facts and avoid jumping to conclusions".
Man C is a cash cow for the EPL and integrity is not getting in the way of that.
Relegated with all of their players most likely going for free?
Nah, I don't see it happening.
The verdict will probably say that the EPL didn't manage to prove anything, however Man C will be guilty of non-cooperation or something like that.
They will be guilty of some things. Not of others. Both sides will claim victory.
I suspect there are some behind the scenes warnings that commenting on the result could lead to additional legal action - whether that is sporting or not is another matter.
Wouldn't surprise me in the least if they get away with all charges related to their actual actions then just get punished for all of the 'failing to cooperate' stuff.
If that happens we might as well not have a governing body.
I don't think the other clubs would accept anything but substantial punitive action. And the EPL has thrown everything at this - they know their reputation is on the line. I'll be surprised if we don't see massive points deductions or relegation (see Juve.).
Prepare to be surprised.
Don't think the Juve case is comparable.
The Juve case was primarily about match-fixing and influencing refs, whereas Man C's case was around financial stuff and breaching FFP.
The Italian football authorities handled Juve's case which lead to immediate and severe penalties.
While City's case is being handled by an independent commission, I think.
Also, isn’t a lot of this is about the Shiek allegedly paying the top up amounts for sponsorship companies rather than the company itself.
Unless City have been stupid enough to reference the transactions specifically and do direct transfers l, I don’t see how you prove it enough to have it stick.
A lot of the evidence seems to be emails talking about doing it - but they surely won’t have been stupid enough to have email confirmation that they actually did it.
Unless City have been stupid enough to reference the transactions specifically and do direct transfers l, I don’t see how you prove it enough to have it stick.
A lot of the evidence seems to be emails talking about doing it - but they surely won’t have been stupid enough to have email confirmation that they actually did it.
Surely they wouldn't be stupid enough to lose their head scouts to a direct rival and not change the log in details to their scouting database
We all know that was a disinformation black-op to convince us city were after Joe Allen and Fabio Borini and get us to sign them instead.
That’s precisely what started all this off.
“Oh fuck. We’ve overspent. What can we do?”
“Just ask for more dough through our sponsorship and say it was bonus from the FA cup”
“Sound. Consider it done.”
This is, I think, the inevitable outcome. The PL has had to charge City with everything they thought they MIGHT be guilty of, because City didn't co-operate and provide the information needed to allow the EPL to home in on the issues. With 130 charges, even if City are only found guilty on a few counts, they will try to position things that they were "exonerated" on 90% of the charges and therefore it's a big win.
Reality - any single charge going against them is a loss, and a big one. The only real measure of that loss, in the eyes of a layman, will be the extent of the punishment. And that's where you have to look at the recent precedents, and the points deductions given to Everton and Forest. A fine will not be enough, they need to be docked points, and on a scale that makes their misconduct relative to those other clubs absolutely clear.
And lads, International Week would be a good time to get this all out in the open. We're waiting.
For each transfer that’s dodgy, including youth, they should get a window transfer ban. Looking how shit they are that would be quite funny seeing them go 4 seasons with no new players.
Standard of proof in PL disciplinary hearings is "balance of probabilities". That's a low burden of proof. Not like the criminal "beyond reasonable doubt" standard.
Argument runs as follows:
PL - These emails say this is what you did.
City - We didn't do it.
PL - Can you provide evidence that you didn't?
City - We don't have to. (Code for no we can't, because we did it).
PL - We think you're lying and if you had provided the information we asked for we'd know one way or another. The only reason you didn't provide it is you know it would prove you are lying. [All couched in lawyer speak, obvs).
Panel then has to decide whether City did it on the balance of probabilities - i.e. that they did do what they said they were going to do when they've provided no evidence that they didn't. It's a low burden of proof. Even if they decide in City's favour, they have to concede the non-co-operation charges - City's failure to co-operate means it's not possible to rule against them. They have successfully "no commented" themselves through the tricky bit in classic Line of Duty fashion.
Yes - if historic points deductions or trophy removals aren't an option then I'd rather something like this (especially if it is more than 2-3 windows) is better than a points deduction that doesn't see them relegated.
You can also bet your bottom dollar that if they got relegated, they'd still "sell out" their stadium every game
Similar threads
- Locked