Based on recent comments from Masters re the ongoing investigation and the inference within that things are fast reaching a conclusion I thought it might be a good idea to start a thread where comments re this issue could be posted as opposed to people adding such comments to other threads.

 

I found Masters comment really interesting and yes I may have misread but I am actually, at this point, not as concerned as I was previously.

There are three routes  the matter could go:

1) Independent Commission ( IC) 

2) Agreed Settlement 

3) No further action.

 1)To progress the matter to an IC the PL disciplinary team will have to be  confident that they can prove matters to a standard  of the “balance of probability” 

Ah you might say the owners self reported matters but that is the first unknown in that we haven’t a clue what has been reported. Irrespective as Masters acknowledges it’s complicated and my guess if for no other reason is that RA and previous directors/ officials can not be compelled to engage with the investigation meaning that it’s highly unlikely that any of those individuals will have been interviewed, if they have they almost certainly would have not added too much but unless they had access specifically to RA and his own accounts and records without context it would be very difficult to reach a balanced conclusion.

2) If I were a betting man this would be the outcome. What this would mean is that  PL and Chelsea would reach the stage where indiscretions would appear to have happened but the PL might not be confident enough to test their evidence in front of IC. 
On the flip Chelsea will possibly/ probably be content to acknowledge that matters were not as they should be but again if a set of sanctions can be agreed between the two parties then whilst the evidence isn’t tested a panel will be required to rubber stamp the details of the settlement.

Bear in mind that there is still circa £100 million in reserve. A sum that was withheld from the proceeds of sale and to be honest keeping it won’t be off any benefit to the owners or the PL as that £100million  will simply be moved to the frozen account in which the proceeds of sale held. Imagine what that sum could do either as a payment to PL clubs “ impacted “ during 2012-219 or to the wider football community 

Another reason I think / hope this will be the route is that it will  set a precedent which almost certainly would be there prior to resolution of the city case and should that not go well for city without mitigation who knows what any IC would level.

So  I would be content a fine of £50-£100 million ( unprecedented) not sure at all about a points deduction maybe 6 points most of which would be suspended and a two window embargo. It’s time that some on here acknowledge that there was an issue uncovered and self reported and it’s one of the issues that the new owners have had to try and navigate and above all prepare the club should there be draconian sanctions 

3) Would be the ideal but I suspect unlikely

Thoughts 

 

Edited August 14, 20241 yr by terraloon

Knowing very little about the case as we all do. But good summation of the case of what we could expect. 

It probably depends a lot on what the case is about. 

Problem with sanctioning a major club like Chelsea and City is you also tarnish many many organizations and the league itself. 

This is why usually slaps on the wrist is the way to go.

53 minutes ago, evissy said:

Knowing very little about the case as we all do. But good summation of the case of what we could expect. 

It probably depends a lot on what the case is about. 

Problem with sanctioning a major club like Chelsea and City is you also tarnish many many organizations and the league itself. 

This is why usually slaps on the wrist is the way to go.

From what I understand the current board are cooperating and blame the former regime for whatever the PL are accusing Chelsea of.

It's probably going to be a massive fine and a transfer ban for a minumum of two or three windows. Hence the investment in a lot of young players and a bloated squad. Probably Clearlake know a longer transfer ban is inevitable at this point.

The Man City inquiry, when it happens, will blow this out of the water.

I think I read that Masters said that the PL doesn't want asterisk next to teams in league tables (or something like that) and  that again vey much points to the PL doing nothing that could in any way tarnish their product. So yes, sitting on the naughty step will be as severe as any punishment will get.

If I were to guess, with us self reporting and the indiscretions being under a previous regime (that was unlawfully forced into selling the club in the first place) It’ll be a X figure fine and a suspended points deduction.
 

Which will lay the foundations for the City punishment to be a larger fine and a higher points deduction that they can then reduce on appeal. 
 

It’s all a show for the cameras and shouldn’t even be an issue for any club if it wasn’t for the absurdly communist idea of FFP/PSR 

I think there are 3 ways to look at it;

1 - The have been sporting benefits as a result of the supposed rule breaking and therefore a sporting punishment should be given. This will be the viewpoint rivals will take. 

2- It was a self reported issue that happened under previous ownership, through which we have been assisting with the investigation and not impeding in anyway. Therefore this should be considered and a fine would suffice, especially as it will 'come from the previous owners' in the form of the £100m put aside for this exact thing. This is what Id imagine most of us want. 

3 - Will probably be a blend of the 2 above. The league will want punishment to be percieved as strong enough so that it discourages future issues from us and others, but they'll want to be seen to be rewarding the way in which we have conducted ourselves as well as ensuring the integrety of their product. Especially with the problems they have had with City fighting them on the 115. 

I see a big fine and potentially a small transfer ban (that might help us). A suspended points deduction would be interesting, even a small points deduction wouldnt be the end of the world. 

39 minutes ago, dermott said:

The Man City inquiry, when it happens, will blow this out of the water.

My concern here is City is the crown jewel of the league. Will they want to tarnish the Premier League itself of the past 6 years or so by saying this lot won the league 5 times over this period and all the results should be cancelled. Or something in lines of this. Every sponsor and affiliate will also be affected. I think it will be brushed off in some clean way.

 

1 hour ago, evissy said:

My concern here is City is the crown jewel of the league. Will they want to tarnish the Premier League itself of the past 6 years or so by saying this lot won the league 5 times over this period and all the results should be cancelled. Or something in lines of this. Every sponsor and affiliate will also be affected. I think it will be brushed off in some clean way.

 

That is why they need to be careful for what ever punishment they give. It has to fit the crime and the backlash from the other 19 clubs is far worse than City being upset. 

Edited August 14, 20241 yr by Sconnie Blue

1 hour ago, evissy said:

My concern here is City is the crown jewel of the league. Will they want to tarnish the Premier League itself of the past 6 years or so by saying this lot won the league 5 times over this period and all the results should be cancelled. Or something in lines of this. Every sponsor and affiliate will also be affected. I think it will be brushed off in some clean way.

 

We'll see. MC got off lightly in the UEFA investigation on a technicality: UEFA's rules contain a statute of limitations. They were unable to pursue the case back beyond 5 years, a time when the alleged dodgy behaviour was underway. The PL's investigations have no such statute of limitations. They can go as far back as they want to. The bundle of hacked leaked MC emails detail their contempt for any inquiry, their planning to derail any inquiry, and their means of covering their tracks. Damning stuff in their own words.

The difference with Chelsea is that (a) it was under a different ownership regime; and (b) it was self-reported. That's not to say Chelsea will get off but it's an entirely different set of circumstances to the MC situation.

Edited August 14, 20241 yr by dermott

I think City are far from the jewel of the premier league and expect this to be very drawn out in legal battles.

Fully expect the premier league and the other clubs to punish them.

 

2 hours ago, dermott said:

The Man City inquiry, when it happens, will blow this out of the water.

If it happens. Never underestimate to power of Middle Eastern Oil money.

37 minutes ago, dermott said:

We'll see. MC got off lightly in the UEFA investigation on a technicality: UEFA's rules contain a statute of limitations. They were unable to pursue the case back beyond 5 years, a time when the alleged dodgy behaviour was underway. The PL's investigations have no such statute of limitations. They can go as far back as they want to. The bundle of hacked leaked MC emails detail their contempt for any inquiry, their planning to derail any inquiry, and their means of covering their tracks. Damning stuff in their own words.

The difference with Chelsea is that (a) it was under a different ownership regime; and (b) it was self-reported. That's not to say Chelsea will get off but it's an entirely different set of circumstances to the MC situation.

For me the reason that City “ got off lightly “ was more to with the negligence and incompetence of UEFA as opposed to a technicality.

UEFA were so convinced they had city bang to rights that  clearly wasn’t so , simply because thinking something and proving even on that balance of probabilities isn’t one and the same thing and that’s something worth bearing in mind when our case proceeds .

City failed to engage with UEFA and indeed were fined for their lack of engagement but CAS because of constraints within Swiss Law weren’t able to draw conclusions for Cities belligerent behaviour. That won’t wash with the PL case simply because in English law in certain circumstances conclusions can be drawn from silence/ lack of engagement.

It’s a bit of misconception to believe that matters aren’t time barred when it comes to Cities PL case and come to that our case.

Irrespective of time limits not being mentioned any disciplinary matter has to be handled in accordance with English Law and here all matters will be guided by the Limitations Act 1980 there it  states :

An action founded on tort shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued.

There are exclusions for instance where it is proven that the matter came about due to fraud, concealment or failure to disclose then that  6 year limit won’t apply.

 

Edited August 14, 20241 yr by terraloon

On 14/08/2024 at 23:52, terraloon said:

Irrespective of time limits not being mentioned any disciplinary matter has to be handled in accordance with English Law and here all matters will be guided by the Limitations Act 1980 there it  states :

An action founded on tort shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued.

There are exclusions for instance where it is proven that the matter came about due to fraud, concealment or failure to disclose then that  6 year limit won’t apply.

 

Possible this is the reason for the extensive delay. The PL must have sufficient evidence to prove the exclusion, or ultimately any breach of contract cannot be enforced. They also have to adhere to strict procedural fairness, which takes time, or else City will simply move to have the matter dismissed on those grounds.

I also read elswhere that while CAS/Swiss courts take a dimmer view on "illegally" obtained evidence (such as the hacked emails), English courts tend to consider all evidence regardless of its source. 

On 14/08/2024 at 10:36, terraloon said:

Based on recent comments from Masters re the ongoing investigation and the inference within that things are fast reaching a conclusion I thought it might be a good idea to start a thread where comments re this issue could be posted as opposed to people adding such comments to other threads.

 

I found Masters comment really interesting and yes I may have misread but I am actually, at this point, not as concerned as I was previously.

There are three routes  the matter could go:

1) Independent Commission ( IC) 

2) Agreed Settlement 

3) No further action.

 1)To progress the matter to an IC the PL disciplinary team will have to be  confident that they can prove matters to a standard  of the “balance of probability” 

Ah you might say the owners self reported matters but that is the first unknown in that we haven’t a clue what has been reported. Irrespective as Masters acknowledges it’s complicated and my guess if for no other reason is that RA and previous directors/ officials can not be compelled to engage with the investigation meaning that it’s highly unlikely that any of those individuals will have been interviewed, if they have they almost certainly would have not added too much but unless they had access specifically to RA and his own accounts and records without context it would be very difficult to reach a balanced conclusion.

2) If I were a betting man this would be the outcome. What this would mean is that  PL and Chelsea would reach the stage where indiscretions would appear to have happened but the PL might not be confident enough to test their evidence in front of IC. 
On the flip Chelsea will possibly/ probably be content to acknowledge that matters were not as they should be but again if a set of sanctions can be agreed between the two parties then whilst the evidence isn’t tested a panel will be required to rubber stamp the details of the settlement.

Bear in mind that there is still circa £100 million in reserve. A sum that was withheld from the proceeds of sale and to be honest keeping it won’t be off any benefit to the owners or the PL as that £100million  will simply be moved to the frozen account in which the proceeds of sale held. Imagine what that sum could do either as a payment to PL clubs “ impacted “ during 2012-219 or to the wider football community 

Another reason I think / hope this will be the route is that it will  set a precedent which almost certainly would be there prior to resolution of the city case and should that not go well for city without mitigation who knows what any IC would level.

So  I would be content a fine of £50-£100 million ( unprecedented) not sure at all about a points deduction maybe 6 points most of which would be suspended and a two window embargo. It’s time that some on here acknowledge that there was an issue uncovered and self reported and it’s one of the issues that the new owners have had to try and navigate and above all prepare the club should there be draconian sanctions 

3) Would be the ideal but I suspect unlikely

Thoughts 

 

Im pretty sure some of that £100 million was used to pay a fine to EUFA?

On 14/08/2024 at 12:39, The Boehly Babes said:

If I were to guess, with us self reporting and the indiscretions being under a previous regime (that was unlawfully forced into selling the club in the first place) It’ll be a X figure fine and a suspended points deduction.
 

Which will lay the foundations for the City punishment to be a larger fine and a higher points deduction that they can then reduce on appeal. 
 

It’s all a show for the cameras and shouldn’t even be an issue for any club if it wasn’t for the absurdly communist idea of FFP/PSR 

 

A system that protects wealthy clubs ...communism ?

On 14/08/2024 at 14:52, terraloon said:

For me the reason that City “ got off lightly “ was more to with the negligence and incompetence of UEFA as opposed to a technicality.

UEFA were so convinced they had city bang to rights that  clearly wasn’t so , simply because thinking something and proving even on that balance of probabilities isn’t one and the same thing and that’s something worth bearing in mind when our case proceeds .

City failed to engage with UEFA and indeed were fined for their lack of engagement but CAS because of constraints within Swiss Law weren’t able to draw conclusions for Cities belligerent behaviour. That won’t wash with the PL case simply because in English law in certain circumstances conclusions can be drawn from silence/ lack of engagement.

It’s a bit of misconception to believe that matters aren’t time barred when it comes to Cities PL case and come to that our case.

Irrespective of time limits not being mentioned any disciplinary matter has to be handled in accordance with English Law and here all matters will be guided by the Limitations Act 1980 there it  states :

An action founded on tort shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued.

There are exclusions for instance where it is proven that the matter came about due to fraud, concealment or failure to disclose then that  6 year limit won’t apply.

 

What if the action isn't founded tort?

Not that I know what a tort is .

On 14/08/2024 at 10:36, terraloon said:

Based on recent comments from Masters re the ongoing investigation and the inference within that things are fast reaching a conclusion I thought it might be a good idea to start a thread where comments re this issue could be posted as opposed to people adding such comments to other threads.

 

I found Masters comment really interesting and yes I may have misread but I am actually, at this point, not as concerned as I was previously.

There are three routes  the matter could go:

1) Independent Commission ( IC) 

2) Agreed Settlement 

3) No further action.

 1)To progress the matter to an IC the PL disciplinary team will have to be  confident that they can prove matters to a standard  of the “balance of probability” 

Ah you might say the owners self reported matters but that is the first unknown in that we haven’t a clue what has been reported. Irrespective as Masters acknowledges it’s complicated and my guess if for no other reason is that RA and previous directors/ officials can not be compelled to engage with the investigation meaning that it’s highly unlikely that any of those individuals will have been interviewed, if they have they almost certainly would have not added too much but unless they had access specifically to RA and his own accounts and records without context it would be very difficult to reach a balanced conclusion.

2) If I were a betting man this would be the outcome. What this would mean is that  PL and Chelsea would reach the stage where indiscretions would appear to have happened but the PL might not be confident enough to test their evidence in front of IC. 
On the flip Chelsea will possibly/ probably be content to acknowledge that matters were not as they should be but again if a set of sanctions can be agreed between the two parties then whilst the evidence isn’t tested a panel will be required to rubber stamp the details of the settlement.

Bear in mind that there is still circa £100 million in reserve. A sum that was withheld from the proceeds of sale and to be honest keeping it won’t be off any benefit to the owners or the PL as that £100million  will simply be moved to the frozen account in which the proceeds of sale held. Imagine what that sum could do either as a payment to PL clubs “ impacted “ during 2012-219 or to the wider football community 

Another reason I think / hope this will be the route is that it will  set a precedent which almost certainly would be there prior to resolution of the city case and should that not go well for city without mitigation who knows what any IC would level.

So  I would be content a fine of £50-£100 million ( unprecedented) not sure at all about a points deduction maybe 6 points most of which would be suspended and a two window embargo. It’s time that some on here acknowledge that there was an issue uncovered and self reported and it’s one of the issues that the new owners have had to try and navigate and above all prepare the club should there be draconian sanctions 

3) Would be the ideal but I suspect unlikely

Thoughts 

 

All I can say is that you have a far greater understanding of these matters than most of us I would think , and your explanations are very welcome.

Thanks 

UK government are in talks with Abu Dhabi over Manchester City and their alleged 115 rule breaches.

Back in February, the Premier League directed charges against Pep Guardiola's side which relate to a series of alleged breaches of financial rules between the 2009/2010 and 2017/2018 seasons.

Reported in the Times 

The UK government have admitted the charges handed to Manchester City by the Premier League have been discussed at their embassy in Abu Dhabi and the Foreign Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) in London, according to a report from the Athletic this week

On 14/08/2024 at 21:39, The Boehly Babes said:

If I were to guess, with us self reporting and the indiscretions being under a previous regime (that was unlawfully forced into selling the club in the first place) It’ll be a X figure fine and a suspended points deduction.

Minor point, but the forced sale of the club was not unlawful, in fact laws were specifically created to force the sale of Russian-linked assets. Abramovich complied with the law instead of fighting it (as was his right) and leaving the club in operational limbo.

 

3 hours ago, The Rising Sun said:

What if the action isn't founded tort?

Not that I know what a tort is .

It's legalese for doing something to wrong someone else that causes damage to them. Legal disputes between two parties are often about determining who is liable for the tort, to what extent they are liable, and what redress or amount of damages is required to pay as compensation. 

In this case it is a bit more complex. Sporting bodies like the PL enforce rules through contract - to participate in the PL, you need to agree to the terms and conditions thereby creating a contract. Each body has a set dispute resolution process and generally also require their members to be bound by the decisions/outcome of that process. Breach of contract is automatically a 'tort', but it might be, and if the PL considers it to be so, it needs to follow the English courts.

3 hours ago, SydneyChelsea said:

Minor point, but the forced sale of the club was not unlawful, in fact laws were specifically created to force the sale of Russian-linked assets. Abramovich complied with the law instead of fighting it (as was his right) and leaving the club in operational limbo.

 

It's legalese for doing something to wrong someone else that causes damage to them. Legal disputes between two parties are often about determining who is liable for the tort, to what extent they are liable, and what redress or amount of damages is required to pay as compensation. 

In this case it is a bit more complex. Sporting bodies like the PL enforce rules through contract - to participate in the PL, you need to agree to the terms and conditions thereby creating a contract. Each body has a set dispute resolution process and generally also require their members to be bound by the decisions/outcome of that process. Breach of contract is automatically a 'tort', but it might be, and if the PL considers it to be so, it needs to follow the English courts.

Great explanation.

Where PL / FA process differs significantly from UEFAs is that once the procedure has been followed there isn’t access to appeal any  decision via the court system or indeed any other body such as CAS. Note I say decision because if there is a claim that the case hasn’t been dealt in accordance with English Law there is a route to take the matter to the High Court . This for me could easily revolve around rules of evidence particularly if that evidence is circumstantial or third party accusations or statements that cant be uncorroborated.

One thing I would advise everyone not to do is get sucked in by journalists or indeed posters who keep on about the inevitable nuclear outcome of  ours or indeed Cities cases.
 

Go back to Masters comments re ours 

 

“Obviously what we're talking about is something historic; it's complicated where we have the club talking to us about things that happened under previous ownership. All I can say is that the investigation and discussions are reaching a conclusion, but until that happens, I can't say what's going to happen next."
 

 

“ Say what happens next “ of course that’s non committal but go back to my OP where I talk about the 3 ways in which this matter can proceed.
 

 Bear in mind what  we  do know and then  ask does it sound as if the football bodies will be able to  actually prove fraud or concealment ? That will be an underlying concern for the investigations the evidence to support any IC hearing will have to be cogent and if the investigation don’t have full access to records I think this will be a major hurdle to overcome if time limitations aren’t to be  applied .Again many will think its obvious it’s provable but it’s no where near a given.
 

That said we haven’t a clue what the extent of the information the new owners have provided other than it was the same as submitted to UEFA who to be fair concluded their case  pretty quickly. I find it inconceivable that matters found during discovery weren’t the subject of discussions between the new owners and UEFA, The PL and The FA prior to the takeover. Those discussions would for me talk about how to deal with this issues and I find it difficult to believe that the retention of £100+ million to settle any issues from RAs time of ownership that were uncovered is a coincidence.
 

Of course history tells us that the football authorities can and have been draconian when it comes to handing down punishment but that in the main has been the FA. Clubs like Luton and Swindon in particular were hammered . It shouldn’t be dismissed that there is still a possibility that the FA deal with outer case just like they did when Brighton a couple of seasons ago when they reported themselves over incorrect transfer dealings. Incidentally they received a fine.

 

Perhaps I am being overly optimistic but for me many of the issues disclosed in the data leak ( if they are indeed the same matters reported ) can’t be judged just on face value others would require third parties to be challenged and again if the audit trail isn’t clear then you have to go back to the fact that it is for the authorities to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt not for the new owners to answer any accusations.

Finally I am 100% confident that there will be an appetite within the governing bodies to get our case out the way before the Cities case is put before an IC so again if I were a betting man I expect a resolution in a matter of weeks

Edited August 16, 20241 yr by terraloon

4 hours ago, SydneyChelsea said:

Minor point, but the forced sale of the club was not unlawful, in fact laws were specifically created to force the sale of Russian-linked assets. Abramovich complied with the law instead of fighting it (as was his right) and leaving the club in operational limbo.

 

It's legalese for doing something to wrong someone else that causes damage to them. Legal disputes between two parties are often about determining who is liable for the tort, to what extent they are liable, and what redress or amount of damages is required to pay as compensation. 

In this case it is a bit more complex. Sporting bodies like the PL enforce rules through contract - to participate in the PL, you need to agree to the terms and conditions thereby creating a contract. Each body has a set dispute resolution process and generally also require their members to be bound by the decisions/outcome of that process. Breach of contract is automatically a 'tort', but it might be, and if the PL considers it to be so, it needs to follow the English courts.

Basically T`s & C`s.

I read a thing about Disney using their T`s & C`s to stop a family suing them after a partent died at disneyland, she was allergic to nuts and ate something that wasnt labelled. But disney said she had signed up to Disney+ tv, and the T`s & C`s say any dispute with them needs t go through their own arbitration....Absolutely gobsmacking that they did this.

8 hours ago, The Rising Sun said:

UK government are in talks with Abu Dhabi over Manchester City and their alleged 115 rule breaches.

Back in February, the Premier League directed charges against Pep Guardiola's side which relate to a series of alleged breaches of financial rules between the 2009/2010 and 2017/2018 seasons.

Reported in the Times 

 

8 hours ago, The Rising Sun said:

The UK government have admitted the charges handed to Manchester City by the Premier League have been discussed at their embassy in Abu Dhabi and the Foreign Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) in London, according to a report from the Athletic this week

I can imagine if some of the leaked info involved emails or private comms between owners and members of the board which include ppl with titles like His Royal Highness or His Royal Excellency then the FCO (what it was called when I was there and it mattered) and GOV. would definitely have to be involved.

Private comms of Members of the Royal Families (UK, UAE, Etc...) are an extremely sensitive matter when it comes to what can or can't be reported by the press.

I wouldn't be surprised if certain emails or bits of info is removed, especially in rgds to a country that is an ally and "partner", also tbh puts a fk load into the UK economy. Tourism alone brings in around 8bil into the UK every summer (last time I checked). That's just tourism, so you can imagine everything else...so yeah I'm not surprised they got in touch tbh and maybe it may be more than that depending what's in the comms.

 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, terraloon said:

Great explanation.

Where PL / FA process differs significantly from UEFAs is that once the procedure has been followed there isn’t access to appeal any  decision via the court system or indeed any other body such as CAS. Note I say decision because if there is a claim that the case hasn’t been dealt in accordance with English Law there is a route to take the matter to the High Court . This for me could easily revolve around rules of evidence particularly if that evidence is circumstantial or third party accusations or statements that cant be uncorroborated.

One thing I would advise everyone not to do is get sucked in by journalists or indeed posters who keep on about the inevitable nuclear outcome of  ours or indeed Cities cases.
 

Go back to Masters comments re ours 

 

“Obviously what we're talking about is something historic; it's complicated where we have the club talking to us about things that happened under previous ownership. All I can say is that the investigation and discussions are reaching a conclusion, but until that happens, I can't say what's going to happen next."
 

 

“ Say what happens next “ of course that’s non committal but go back to my OP where I talk about the 3 ways in which this matter can proceed.
 

 Bear in mind what  we  do know and then  ask does it sound as if the football bodies will be able to  actually prove fraud or concealment ? That will be an underlying concern for the investigations the evidence to support any IC hearing will have to be cogent and if the investigation don’t have full access to records I think this will be a major hurdle to overcome if time limitations aren’t to be  applied .Again many will think its obvious it’s provable but it’s no where near a given.
 

That said we haven’t a clue what the extent of the information the new owners have provided other than it was the same as submitted to UEFA who to be fair concluded their case  pretty quickly. I find it inconceivable that matters found during discovery weren’t the subject of discussions between the new owners and UEFA, The PL and The FA prior to the takeover. Those discussions would for me talk about how to deal with this issues and I find it difficult to believe that the retention of £100+ million to settle any issues from RAs time of ownership that were uncovered is a coincidence.
 

Of course history tells us that the football authorities can and have been draconian when it comes to handing down punishment but that in the main has been the FA. Clubs like Luton and Swindon in particular were hammered . It shouldn’t be dismissed that there is still a possibility that the FA deal with outer case just like they did when Brighton a couple of seasons ago when they reported themselves over incorrect transfer dealings. Incidentally they received a fine.

 

Perhaps I am being overly optimistic but for me many of the issues disclosed in the data leak ( if they are indeed the same matters reported ) can’t be judged just on face value others would require third parties to be challenged and again if the audit trail isn’t clear then you have to go back to the fact that it is for the authorities to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt not for the new owners to answer any accusations.

Finally I am 100% confident that there will be an appetite within the governing bodies to get our case out the way before the Cities case is put before an IC so again if I were a betting man I expect a resolution in a matter of weeks

Exactly...I don't see Roman, marina or even Czech filling in the blanks for them in statements or interviews. Lol

They have all the info they will ever get...is it enough? That's the real question of all this hoo-ha.

If info is incomplete or there's lots of question marks they can't assume guilt/wrongdoing/etc...

Edited August 16, 20241 yr by Simplymo