PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

When City are cleared, that is the time to stop radio shows and ‘reporters’ discussing it and allowing comment on it.
If that stops, the scrotes from other clubs can’t fan the flames. At that point the shite withers and dies.. apart from probably the mentally challenged on RAWK. However without a listening audience they will crawl back under their rocks.
 
Brightwell Bros. said:
Yeah, the single most frustrating thing I hear at the moment is the complaint that City have hired lawyers to defend themselves and they're doing a robust job and will get off on a technicality. No fucking shit they have, and if there are technicalities that let us off the hook then the charges aren't remotely as serious as have been claimed. The CAS reporting has set the groundwork for this, I think.
Click to expand...

I wonder what technicalities they think we'll get off on? The fact they spelt Pep wrong or the fact they had no evidence to support their charges and what we presented was sufficient to dismiss them! I always laugh at Simon Jordan going on about how we should show this irrefutable evidence if we have it... I'm not sure many lawyers would advise their clients to publish evidence to joe public as opposed to at a trial/hearing where it can be discussed in the proper manner and taken in its rightful context.
 
GaudinoMotors said:
My personal favourite in all this is the assertion that we have an unfair advantage in that we have expensive legal representation - Dame Dinenage - a Baroness no less, for services to the bleeding obvious and doing her job - and someone with form for condemning before a legal verdict, I think it was she, asked/intimated about whether is was fair we had expensive lawyers compared to "smaller clubs". So now premiership clubs can't afford decent legal advice and lawyers? Look at the transfer fees and salaries they pay - er I think they can. It appears, given the caution (for once from Masters - an inveterate gobshite) and the clear avoidance to anything with our case - that our lawyers are all over this and already earning their corn. How unfair of us to defend ourselves so well!! The Government would never think of using DLA Piper, Dentons, Addleshaw Goddard, Browne Jacobson, Burges Salmon, DAC Beachcroft etc etc and have a Legal Framework reserve of £430M to crush the little man.
Click to expand...
It was Dominic Grieve who suggested that Everton and Forest were being victimised because they were so small they couldn’t even afford a lawyer, unlike ’others’ who had enough money for lawyers and thus didn’t get punished. And that lot are going to be instrumental in appointing any independent regulator, ffs……..
 
eastmanc said:
The problem for any club is if you don't vote for FFP then you can't compete in their competition. Therefore City had to sign up for FFP. We had no choice.
Click to expand...
Youve mixed up voting whether to implement a scheme with agreeing to obey whatever was decided. We voted against the last proposal but we take part anyway.
 
Blue_Lightsaber said:
Think its time City took this clown to court and forced a court decision of cease and desist upon him:

View attachment 104324
Click to expand...
Excellent from the biggest dick in football. I actually read Sheikh Mansour's open letter of September 2008 in which he outlined his plans for "accelerated investment" and he had already told UEFA of his plan when they talked to him about FFP! There were no regulations to try and stop him so at no point did he or anyone else at the club need to cook the books. Book cooking is certainly not evident from anything that happened in 2014 and I struggle to believe that anyone at the club was/is foolish enough to speak to such a renowned expert in football finance about such sensitive matters. Pull the other one, Dick.
 
Blue_Lightsaber said:
Think its time City took this clown to court and forced a court decision of cease and desist upon him:

View attachment 104324
Click to expand...
I doubt it. I can see a few legal threats, but then I suspect he's already been told to stop.

Why would the club want a libel trial? Even if City are cleared by the PL, it would just prolong the club's legal issues.

Just think back to the Wagatha Christie trial, or Amber Heard v Johnny Depp. Libel trials are messy, public, and would involve the club's hierarchy having to give evidence, share phone records etc. Do the club really want to do all this again, but in public?
 
Norbiton said:
If Nick Harris believes the 2014 punishment was for cooking the books he hasn’t been paying as much attention as he claims. And what kind of saddo boasts about being somebody’s guest before “calling them out”. Yes, I know he has issues but it’s hard to feel any sympathy
Click to expand...

To be fair to him, I think the 2014 investigation and settlement was largely about the ability the club had to increase sponsorship revenue from the UAE effectively as required and, when that wasn't sufficient, the creative accounting around intangible assets, both of which, I suppose, could be called accelerated investment, or even, colloquially, "cooking the books". Various paranoid and xenophobic players around UEFA were worried about City's rise and were determined to stop it, though. Hence the late change to wage deductions to ensure the club failed FFP and the settlement-imposed restrictions on the share of sponsorship the club could take from the UAE and the effective reversal of the IA sales (iirc) as well as the fine and squad limitations.

That was my take on it at the time, at least.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.