Kangaroo panel finds us guilty

[craigmcfc]

Just my thoughts

[mr_nool]

So roughly 1/4 of our revenue over this nine year period was fraudulent? And the fraudulent sponsor income was roughly 6–7 times higher than our legit sponsor income? That just doesn't make sense. Sounds to me like the PL have treated all sponsor income from the UAE as if it was directly from the pocket of the Sheik, fair value or not.

[sharkey]

A statement from Soriano just got posted on Reddit:

https://www.reddit.com/r/MCFC/s/7FfINZhzfu

Very strong!

Might well be AI generated...... Move along

[Nick]

Get it shared everywhere and to all the cunts out there

[sheblue]

He says the club provided all the irrefutable evidence and the commission had to have ignored it.

Very strange if true.

[dick dastardley]

If this evidence was ever needed it is now, we need to fucking sink these cunts PL once and for all, and if city have anything on those cartel fuckers we need to spill every bit.
The club, fans and all of city media outlets now need to round the wagons and let the siege mentality kick in.
We will not be defeated it'll make us stronger
CTID

[bigblue]

Now I am not a lawyer but reading the document provided by the PL, the actual hearing was only 42 days from Sept 24 to Dec 24. What the actual fuck have they been doing for the last 20 months? The document goes to great lengths to try to account for this - most of the preamble is making excuses for it taking so long.

But the bigger issue that I have with this document is the lack of substance provided. From the document:

https://resources.premierleague.pulseli ... cision.pdf

i) Burden and standard of proof
19) At Appendix 7 we set out
a) Where we found the burden of proof to lie in these proceedings, and
b) The standard of proof that we considered to be applicable to the Charges

25) The approaches that we took
a) To assessing what, if any inferences, were properly to be drawn, and any inferences that we considered it appropriate to draw, and
b) In light of the fact that the evidential picture was incomplete are set out in Appendix 7.

So they say that the evidence was incomplete - but don't publish any of the appendices to show what the standard of proof was that they used or even how the evidence was incomplete???

29) We concluded that the majority of the witnesses of fact who gave evidence before us were doing their best to provide honest evidence and to assist us in our determination of the Charges. However, as set out principally in that Appendix 6 we concluded

a) That evidence given by a number of important factual witnesses called to give evidence
on behalf of the Club was false in a number of key respects, and

b) That certain of those factual witnesses had given evidence at the hearing that they knew
to be untrue and so had been dishonest.

30) How those conclusions impacted on the factual findings that we made in relation to the subject matter of each Charge is apparent in the Appendices in which we have set out those factual findings. So
a) Appendix 15 sets out where we have not accepted the evidence of factual witnesses who gave evidence relevant to Charge 1(A)
b) Appendices 16, 17 and 18 set out where we have not accepted the evidence of factual witnesses who gave evidence relevant to Charge 1(B)
c) Appendix 19 sets out where we have not accepted the evidence of factual witnesseswho gave evidence relevant to Charge 1(c).

And also claim that witnesses called by City lied and gave false testimony - but again, the appendices are not published so I guess we just have to take their word on this???

31) We were invited by the Club to have regard to, and place weight on, evidence given by a number of individuals in letters and other documents, but who (for a variety of different reasons) did not appear before us to give oral evidence.
32) We set out the approach that we adopted in respect of such evidence at Appendix 7. We also in that same Appendix 7 set out the conclusions that we reached in the light of such evidence and the weight, if any, that we gave to the written evidence given by such individuals. Where appropriate, reference is made to that written evidence in other Appendices also.

This reads like they just disregarded written evidence given by City because the relevant individuals did not testify in person during this 42 day window. Which is an absurd position to take - and again we are just supposed to accept their reasoning because the appendices are not published.

36) For the reasons set out in that Appendix 3 we rejected the Club’s criticisms of the PL. In our view they were not justified and did not lead to the consequences urged on us by the Club.

What the fuck is this bit and why is it even in here? It reads more like a disclosure from a prosecutors office than from a neutral party. Shameful to release it in this way without any of the reasoning behind it.

But this does make me hopeful that City have a wide lane for appeal to the courts when they clearly state that they disregarded evidence provided by City, ignored other evidence, refuse to make public their reasoning, and go out of the way to show their bias.

[Blue In Bolton]

He says the club provided all the irrefutable evidence and the commission had to have ignored it.

Very strange if true.

Is it? Wasn't the panel supposed to be impartial? How can that be the case when there were 2 x Arsenal representatives and 1 x United on said panel.
Just needed a Scouser or two on it for complete bias!

[Crossie]

I think I’ve figured it out.

PL knows we’re not guilty and are highly embarrassed. They decide to find us guilty even though they know we aren’t. This creates maximum possible disruption and damage to us for a period of a few months. They get to live how they want to live forever but know it’ll all be overturned at appeal. They can then say “well we think they are but someone else decided they aren’t so out of our hands ” They leave as much doubt as possible to leave a scar on us forever.

They know they can’t win so they go for the lowest cheapest shot that gives them a crumb of a result. They save 0.1% of face and get to blame the appeal panel.

It’s possible this is the compromise we agreed to accept too. Knowing we’re eventually officially cleared.

[bigblue]

A statement from Soriano just got posted on Reddit:

https://www.reddit.com/r/MCFC/s/7FfINZhzfu

Very strong!

That seems to match pretty much with what I pointed out above. Looks more and more like this "independent commission" just decided to ignore all the evidence that City provided. Shameful

[sheblue]

He says the club provided all the irrefutable evidence and the commission had to have ignored it.

Very strange if true.

Is it? Wasn't the panel supposed to be impartial? How can that be the case when there were 2 x Arsenal representatives and 1 x United on said panel.
Just needed a Scouser or two on it for complete bias!

I agree. But I still find it amazing that we offered evidence and they chose just to ignore it. I mean they will have to answer that sometime.
Unless its a witch hunt from the start, which I felt it was nearly 3 years ago.

[Swales4ever]

They could drop the bombshell now and save a lot of bother?

Again, I understand and share the anger, John.
But I had read into your thoughts for 17 yrs now, not to know how smart, cool and balanced you are.
In the weird legal world time frames are integral part of a winning strategy, and facts and evidences can only be submitted at right moment in time to the proper effect.
I know you know, even though you're pissed off.
Of course, as the bombshell, I never meant a video evidence of their corruption (which I don't think exists), otherwise I would agree the bomb should have been already dropped.

Aside, I couldn't agree more with all comments about the £900m, which as ludicrous as it appears, will probably construct a solid part of our final vindication.

[Swales4ever]

I think I’ve figured it out.

PL knows we’re not guilty and are highly embarrassed. They decide to find us guilty even thought they know we aren’t. This creates maximum possible disruption and damage to us for a period of a few months. They get to live how they want to live forever but know it’ll all be overturned at appeal. They can then say “well we think they are but someone else decided they aren’t so out of our hands ” They leave as much doubt as possible to leave a scar on us forever.

They know they can’t win so they go for the lowest cheapest shot that gives them a crumb of a result. They eve 0.1% of face and get to blame the appeal panel.

It’s possible this is the compromise we agreed to accept too. Knowing we’re eventually officially cleared.

I think you've figured it out pretty bang on.
Except that the appeal panel will be almost as biased as the first instance 's one.
Settlement will come on arbitration, imho, or complete vindication on the High Court ( which I hardly can see they might want to arrive to).

[Swales4ever]

Just my thoughts

So good to see you back, Craig. I missed your wags so badly.
Excellent job on twitter, even though I hate social media and always stayed away from them.
Cheers.

[PeterParker]

The two arse and a rag members of the panel was legit?

[salford city]

The two arse and a rag members of the panel was legit?

Not only that, but the head honcho who is arsenal picked the other two. The daft thing about that is that SURELY that in itself has to show it was never impartial.

[CTID Hants]

The two arse and a rag members of the panel was legit?

Not only that, but the head honcho who is arsenal picked the other two. The daft thing about that is that SURELY that in itself has to show it was never impartial.

Do we have names?

[Blue Jam]

The two arse and a rag members of the panel was legit?

Not only that, but the head honcho who is arsenal picked the other two. The daft thing about that is that SURELY that in itself has to show it was never impartial.

Do we have names?

Names protected apparently

[carl_feedthegoat]

The two arse and a rag members of the panel was legit?

Not only that, but the head honcho who is arsenal picked the other two. The daft thing about that is that SURELY that in itself has to show it was never impartial.

Do we have names?

Its confidential .......that alone stinks.

The guy who appointed this 3 man panel was this City hating arsenal fan below.
''His chambers bio said he is a member of Arsenal FC. A 2019 profile also called him an Arsenal season-ticket holder. That means supporter access (tickets/membership), not a job at the club.
City objected to him appointing the commission because of that. The challenge failed. He did not sit on the three-person panel that issued the guilty finding; he appointed it. He later left the Judicial Panel chair role. Sir Gary Hickinbottom holds it now''.

[salford city]

The two arse and a rag members of the panel was legit?

Not only that, but the head honcho who is arsenal picked the other two. The daft thing about that is that SURELY that in itself has to show it was never impartial.

Do we have names?

Its confidential.......that alone stinks.

Saw a video yesterday that named the head guy who is a member of the MCC as well as Arsenal. It did not name the other two. Will have to try and did itup but mayhave been the typical city kid on YT