Let's say they are ejected from the league, or stripped of their titles or whatever - can you honestly see them meekly accepting their punishment? Their lawyers will be at this moment poring over labyrinthine legal precedent looking for anything that they can use. It won't have anything to do with football rules, but similarly to Bosman, looking for some way of arguing they are being denied some universal human right or some such crap. I don't pretend to know how they will go about it, I'm no legal expert either, but I'm no dunce on human nature and I see no possibility of them going quietly.
exactly. no private panel is above the courts of the land. not one. therefore any punishment that city take that's over and above a slap on the wrist will go to court but I feel once the evidence is in they will resort to courts to challenge the legality of what went on so no decision can be easily reached.
Absolutely, they won't go quietly. I've never said otherwise, actually I don't think I've speculated on either that or what the punishment would be or should be. I've focussed more on how they can bring any sort of legal action, having signed up to rules which they have now broken. That shouldn't be interpreted as me saying that they will just shrug and say never mind, we'll just have to take our medicine. They will be kicking and screaming and will have every legal resource hard at work. As there is no precedent, they won't be able to point to any similar situations to contrast punishments. I said a while ago that punishments should be laid out at the start so it's known what the likely outcome of a rule break will be. I've since read that the PL doesn't want to do that because it feels that clubs will be less likely to offend if they don't know what the punishment will be. If a club thinks that it can handle the punishment then it won't be a deterrent. I can see that having some value except it leaves it open for more appeals as clubs may want to risk having another panel come to a decision with a lesser punishment.
Let's say the punishment is relegation. What court is going to rule against that and on what basis? I'm not saying it won't happen. I absolutely don't know. I'm just curious how this take them to court scenario actually plays out.
no court will rule on that. they will rule on the legality of the process. the first thing that imo will happen of a date will be set properly. its Rumoured to be as far away as November. the second there is one an injunction will be sought to determine the actual standing of the process and such. then the thing will go ahead and question will be put to city who will refuse to answer then walk out of the process and go to court to again seek an injunction.to prevent them going forward to make decisions due to the process being unfair. eventually if any decision comes out then there will be a law suit when damages will be sought with the punishment put off until its heard. allegations of bias and stories will start to surface from media owned by people associated with city about how corrupt the people involved are etc etc.
If they are found guilty of significant breaches, then no punishment is too harsh. Well, maybe a firing squad is a bit extreme. Just. It's not just the nature of the offences, it's their repercussions. City have been hoovering up trophies for years, denying other clubs their legitimate successes, and that is making a mockery of English football and destroying its credibility as an honest competition.
expulsion and a vote by the efl clubs of what to do with them is the bare minimum imo if the efl want to that their own clubs like **** and put them in the championship then so be it, but they should go to league 2.
Out of interest, we hear all the time that this club or that club will take the PL or whoever to court, (eg clubs who were relegated instead of Everton) has it ever happened?
In the time it takes to punish City they'll probably win the title three or four more times and break two dozen more rules. Owners won't care. They don't care about the club. They care about promoting their country. If City get blasted into oblivion and forbidden from the premier League for a decade they'll just laugh it off. Theyll have had a couple decades of dominating and having Etihad, etc plastered all over screens world wide. It's already achieved what they want even if it leaves behind Man City as a husk unable to compete in the premier League for years. They can sell City off, buy a new club, do it all again.
I don't know about shares but I've always gone with - past behaviour is the best indicator of future behaviour.
I thought the Prem clubs had signed up to an agreement that after any penalty by the Prem they had one appeal to the Prem appeals committee and that was it. The agreement states they can't go to a civil court. If this is the case then City would have to have a court set aside the Prem rules, which they themselves agreed to.
It really confuses me, what actually city coukd take the orem to court for? Regardless of outcome. It's a private league, run by private members, with their own set of rules, what could city claim?
But again, what's that got to do with the court of law. It's like me complaining to the police that I've been thrown out of the pub?
Not really, it's claiming the governing body is corrupt. They couldn't win this argument imo, and it's very unlikely to happen too. I'm just answering you
Civic rather than criminal. Maybe contract dispute. I'm sure there's all sorts of legal paperwork saying exactly how things will be run and organized and probably something somewhere stating that the governing body will apply rules fairly, etc. Manchester City will probably argue something about how the Premier League has treated them unfairly and that their punishments amount to unfair treatment that will negatively impact the club financially and that the Premier League punishing them will bring their trademarked name into ill-repute and damage their good name- probably say how it has lowered their brand-name's net worth by billions of quid and that people won't buy their shirts because of it so Premier League punishing them is hurting them financially. Maybe they'll make a few comments about slander and misrepresentation... Something along those lines.
But how could you claim the governing body was corrupt and still expect to be part of the competition the governing body oversees. I've been thrown out the pub, called the landlord a ****er, piss on his shoes, then expect to be let back in. I just don't see how the two marry up. If nothing is done to city, I can I imagine Everton could possibly make a case, but again on what grounds, discrimination? It's not fair? I just don't get what a court of law could be involved with.
