City and Financial Doping | Charged by PL with 130 FFP breaches | Hearing concluded | Awaiting outcome

Bartondale said:
It's the calibre of professions needed to consider the charges that is the issue here. When City were charged for breaching CL rules the panel who considered the matter were an ex Prime Minister of Belgium, a solicitor who worked for the ECHR and an English barrister and QC.
It's not a job for Hawksbee, Jacobs and Alan Brazil.

City submitted over 500,000 items of evidence in their defence of the 115 charges. That's over 166,667 per panel member. I assume much of this evidence is frivolous and would include volumes of case law containing a thousand or more cases. However, the panel members have to wade through each case and explain it's irrelevance.

If you assume an hours work to consider each item of evidence then one person working a 10 hour day, 5 days a week for 52 weeks per year(ignore holidays) would spend 2,600 hours per year on the case. For 166,667 hours, divided by 2,600 hours pa, it would only take 64 years to complete the task.
A 10 man team would reduce that to 6.4 years, a 20 man team a mere 3.2.

Maybe the panel could sub-contract some of the work to smaller legal practices in order to save time but the time-scale will still be enormous. It will be years before this matter is concluded.
Click to expand...
If that's the case then put them on remand like we do with individuals facing criminal charges. If it takes 64 years, then that's 64 years of them not being able to compete in professional football. If found innocent, then they can appeal for damages.
 
Bert_ said:
If that's the case then put them on remand like we do with individuals facing criminal charges. If it takes 64 years, then that's 64 years of them not being able to compete in professional football. If found innocent, then they can appeal for damages.
Click to expand...
The bit no-one can understand is how a member of a league can defy a governing body and refuse to comply with their request for evidence like City seem to have done.
A huge amount of those charges relate to that.
 
Bartondale said:
Correct. There are three phases, verdict, appeal, punishment.

If City appeal against the verdict then the existing three person panel must resign and be replaced by three new people. The new panel must then start from scratch to arrive at a second verdict. There can be no appeal against the second verdict or the eventual punishment.
Click to expand...
Hang on, would they they have to spend the same 3-4 years sifting through the evidence?!
Surely not.
 
sheva1992 said:
I’m not sure I should trust this too much. It’s only one source saying it. To believe it, more outlets should be reporting the same thing
Click to expand...
The source has been reliable before. That doesn’t mean it will be this time, but Pep packing it in is a good sign.
 
Sandikan said:
Hang on, would they they have to spend the same 3-4 years sifting through the evidence?!
Surely not.
Click to expand...
I have to assume that they're allowed to use whatever material has been collected by the first panel, otherwise it's one big farce.
 
Sandikan said:
The bit no-one can understand is how a member of a league can defy a governing body and refuse to comply with their request for evidence like City seem to have done.
A huge amount of those charges relate to that.
Click to expand...

There should have been an injunction if that did indeed occur. Perhaps the league body set a date to provide evidence in the response of withholding or refusal to comply with penalty of immediate suspension from league competition. May also have required a 75% vote or something. And any of this may have some sort of competition law I'm not aware of, thus moot until a final court ruling. Not sure if England have anti-trust laws in sports, perhaps that could also impact competitions.
 
MrMarcello said:
There should have been an injunction if that did indeed occur. Perhaps the league body set a date to provide evidence in the response of withholding or refusal to comply with penalty of immediate suspension from league competition. May also have required a 75% vote or something. And any of this may have some sort of competition law I'm not aware of, thus moot until a final court ruling. Not sure if England have anti-trust laws in sports, perhaps that could also impact competitions.
Click to expand...
Should just be a very simple rule - you don't comply, you don't play.
 
Bartondale said:
It's the calibre of professions needed to consider the charges that is the issue here. When City were charged for breaching CL rules the panel who considered the matter were an ex Prime Minister of Belgium, a solicitor who worked for the ECHR and an English barrister and QC.
It's not a job for Hawksbee, Jacobs and Alan Brazil.

City submitted over 500,000 items of evidence in their defence of the 115 charges. That's over 166,667 per panel member. I assume much of this evidence is frivolous and would include volumes of case law containing a thousand or more cases. However, the panel members have to wade through each case and explain it's irrelevance.

If you assume an hours work to consider each item of evidence then one person working a 10 hour day, 5 days a week for 52 weeks per year(ignore holidays) would spend 2,600 hours per year on the case. For 166,667 hours, divided by 2,600 hours pa, it would only take 64 years to complete the task.
A 10 man team would reduce that to 6.4 years, a 20 man team a mere 3.2.

Maybe the panel could sub-contract some of the work to smaller legal practices in order to save time but the time-scale will still be enormous. It will be years before this matter is concluded.
Click to expand...
500,000 items of evidence is ridiculous. There should be a limit on how much evidence can be submitted, as in a thesis for a University degree. There has to be a degree of reasonableness as to what a panel should have to consider.
 
Documents, documents, documents…. Throw it all into AI and let it do the leg work. We’ll have an answer by breakfast.
 
Fitchett said:
500,000 items of evidence is ridiculous. There should be a limit on how much evidence can be submitted, as in a thesis for a University degree. There has to be a degree of reasonableness as to what a panel should have to consider.
Click to expand...
Think it's at least 50,000 but "could be" up to 10 times that. Surely it's not actually 500,000.
 
I honestly believe that when it's about to drop, we'll all have a tingling feeling.

I don't have a tingling feeling. Not one tingle.
 
City bidding over £100m for Anderson with impunity whilst "charges" are waiting to doled out.

It's beyond a farce and has been for years already.

What's that? £600m on new players whilst under investigation?
 
Fortitude said:
City bidding over £100m for Anderson with impunity whilst "charges" are waiting to doled out.

It's beyond a farce and has been for years already.

What's that? £600m on new players whilst under investigation?
Click to expand...
Yeah it's a complete joke. Makes an absolute mockery of the league.

I'm guessing they tell any prospective new players 'Don't worry about the charges, nothing is happening with those anyway'.
 
They're literally pissing in the face of the league, fans, country, everyone. They're above rules and regulation, at least they appear to see it this way. The panel must hand down a monstrous penalty. And the league should immediately go after the subsequent years for the same charges.
 
Hull City had a 2 window transfer ban over £1m. City need a 60 point deduction and a 6 window transfer ban. It won’t be enforceable in the championship but the premier league should say that any players signed there for money won’t be eligible to play in the premier league until after the ban expires. They can get by with existing squad, youth players and free transfers.

They’ll have to sell a load in the championship to survive with the new squad cost rules too, as the EFL don’t mess around when it comes to punishments.
 
Fortitude said:
City bidding over £100m for Anderson with impunity whilst "charges" are waiting to doled out.

It's beyond a farce and has been for years already.

What's that? £600m on new players whilst under investigation?
Click to expand...

Probably £600+ on new players since the hearing concluded
 
I think it's time we need to accept. Nothing is going to happen with this.
 
Can't see anything being announced during the World Cup. Will take the eyes and ears off the tournament and also unsettle players there who play for City.
 
Fortitude said:
City bidding over £100m for Anderson with impunity whilst "charges" are waiting to doled out.

It's beyond a farce and has been for years already.

What's that? £600m on new players whilst under investigation?
Click to expand...
Absolutely, which should be considered as part of their punishment, if found guilty.

They are now prepared to survive almost any length of transfer ban or spending limitations as they have already done the spending and continue to do so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.