PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[oakiecokie]

Whats his username here ?

uselesscunt,

 

[I'm Blue]

Whats his username here ?

Nick the dick who’s thick as shit

 

[M18CTID]

The **** must suffer from repetitive finger syndrome the amount of time he spends blocking blues! Haha!

Anybody remember a few years ago when he actually unblocked hundreds of us? The bloke’s a fucking weirdo!

 

[M18CTID]

Fukin nut job

That’s not a nice thing to say about @Ric ;)

 

[manimanc]

I've just discovered I've been blocked, for a post over 3 mths ago.
I posted;
"That's a very serious allegation. You should post your evidence."

I got blocked by him too.
I posted " You fuckin bitter four eyed little prick. I'm going to find out where you live and cut your legs off".
Apart from the odd swear word I thought it was fair game.

 

[BlueRockape]

That’s not a nice thing to say about @Ric ;)

I knew someone would pick up on it. ; )

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

Why do City attract the nutters? We had mad Miguel, now nasty Nick. Loons.

 

[Metalartin]

Anyone wonder if David Conn is one of Nick's mysterious sources? Has he ever had any genuine City connections, other than once being a fan, before he decided he couldn't be anymore because City got bought by a UAE royal and "Arabs are bad"?

I think it's fair to say Nick and those like him are the journalist(so called) equivalents of Goldbridge and Terry(Football Terrace) as youtube content creators. They are monetising anti-city narratives by fully pandering to a certain audience. An audience that are hoping all the allegations are true because they can't stand City's success on and off the pitch. The only difference, is the latter are playing characters, or openly playing to the crowd at least(not trying to hide it).

Nick on the other hand is delusional(or a massive bullshitter if he isn't), he has convinced himself he's an expert and a hero figure in football coverage. It's obvious he has an agenda by how he carries himself but unless you can show he has never shown any other club other than City this kind of energy... He will still try and deny that he has any agenda against City. "I'd do the same for any other club because I care about the sport" would be his defence.

So if he's here reading this, maybe he should ask himself and answer honestly with examples. Has he made a massive fuss in the early hours about the suspected betting shell companies linked to United and Arsenal(they've both had them). Did he spend months on end fuming about the Ref bribes in Spain story. Has he talked at length about the Rwanda, Iran, Suadi sponsor links to the red cartel 3 and the human rights element of them.

There's been FFP breaches and allegations aimed at United(failed UEFA ffp, possibly the PL compliance rule by extension), Chelsea, Barca, Real and Juve(you could talk all day about the number of cheating scandals they've had) since 2018. Liverpool multiple times since 2011(still the relevant period). Has he given any of those the same level of interest, with the same emotions?

Imagine if City had written off £50m in expenses for a non existent stadium.
Imagine if City were gaining unauthorised access to another club's scouting network over a number of years, 100s of times(source on internal City investigation findings anyone?).
Imagine if a doctor involved in one of the country's biggest doping scandals named City as one of his clients.

Would he have ever bought the excuses from the club if they gave any. Or the reasons from the organisers for not persuing/investigating the matter? If the answer is "no" to all of the above(and I suspect it is), then yes he does have an obsessive agenda against City. No "that's whataboutery" wouldn't be a valid argument against that conclusion.

 

[LongsightM13]

All the mood music from within the club indicates the charges are being systematically destroyed year by year. The confidence levels are even higher now than on "charges day" back in February 2023. This begs the question, how the hell is the IC/PL going to extricate itself from this omnishambles. I suspect they will go down the route of "NOT PROVEN" for the substantive charges, i.e., a compromise based on the verdict used in Scottish criminal law. They will no doubt throw in a non-cooperation verdict, probably with another ridiculously high fine, to appease the City haters and afford the PL a wee bit of credibility. This is all my own guesswork, but I can see a situation where the PL will claim a complete lack of jurisdiction over City's sponsors, Etihad, Etisalat, and Aabar, making it impossible to prove the contracts were in any sense illegitimate. I think the same will apply to the Al Jazira/Mancini contract. All independent experts suggest the image rights charges are completely dead in the water, as anything that was dubious would be investigated by HMRC, who clearly are not the slightest bit interested.

So what would the legal advice be to City and the sponsors given a "Not Proven" outcome. The sponsors would have to demonstrate that the IC/PL ruling would cause material damage to their businesses. I doubt they could prove this, so they would probably take no further action. That just leaves the club's response. I'm guessing again, but I think a settlement whereby the PL stated publicly and unequivocally that all historical investigations into City's accounts from 2008 to the present day have been terminated in perpetuity. Of course, the downside would be that this outcome would allow the professional City haters to continue to scrape a subsistence living as click bait life forms, i.e., continuing to spread the inevitable slurs and tropes. Hopefully City's response would involve a newly uplifted long term partnership with Etihad Airways, Let's hope it's a whopper and a world beater, as befitting for the best team in the world.

One thing we have all learned since 2008 is the following: when Khaldoon Mubarak says something is going to happen, we can be pretty sure it will, and that includes his "plenty to say" promise in last year's end-of-season review. Let's just say the chances of Richard Masters being the CEO of the Premier League after this case are virtually zero. He could perhaps form a comedy duo; the "Masters and Harris" podcast would be a sensation with at least 20 subscribers.

Pretty sure it’s been established that hearing is subject to English law. They can’t suddenly adjudicate by the rules of a different jurisdiction

 

[StillBluessinceHydeRoad]

All the mood music from within the club indicates the charges are being systematically destroyed year by year. The confidence levels are even higher now than on "charges day" back in February 2023. This begs the question, how the hell is the IC/PL going to extricate itself from this omnishambles. I suspect they will go down the route of "NOT PROVEN" for the substantive charges, i.e., a compromise based on the verdict used in Scottish criminal law. They will no doubt throw in a non-cooperation verdict, probably with another ridiculously high fine, to appease the City haters and afford the PL a wee bit of credibility. This is all my own guesswork, but I can see a situation where the PL will claim a complete lack of jurisdiction over City's sponsors, Etihad, Etisalat, and Aabar, making it impossible to prove the contracts were in any sense illegitimate. I think the same will apply to the Al Jazira/Mancini contract. All independent experts suggest the image rights charges are completely dead in the water, as anything that was dubious would be investigated by HMRC, who clearly are not the slightest bit interested.

So what would the legal advice be to City and the sponsors given a "Not Proven" outcome. The sponsors would have to demonstrate that the IC/PL ruling would cause material damage to their businesses. I doubt they could prove this, so they would probably take no further action. That just leaves the club's response. I'm guessing again, but I think a settlement whereby the PL stated publicly and unequivocally that all historical investigations into City's accounts from 2008 to the present day have been terminated in perpetuity. Of course, the downside would be that this outcome would allow the professional City haters to continue to scrape a subsistence living as click bait life forms, i.e., continuing to spread the inevitable slurs and tropes. Hopefully City's response would involve a newly uplifted long term partnership with Etihad Airways, Let's hope it's a whopper and a world beater, as befitting for the best team in the world.

One thing we have all learned since 2008 is the following: when Khaldoon Mubarak says something is going to happen, we can be pretty sure it will, and that includes his "plenty to say" promise in last year's end-of-season review. Let's just say the chances of Richard Masters being the CEO of the Premier League after this case are virtually zero. He could perhaps form a comedy duo; the "Masters and Harris" podcast would be a sensation with at least 20 subscribers.

I think there is a problem with a fudged non-proven ruling and that is that City may well refuse to accept it. We have been led to believe that our club is certain that we have done nothing wrong and a fudge by the PL may well convince the government that the PL can't regulate itself and is risking alienating an important strategic ally to satisfy a bunch of profiteers. Looking for a football club which is closest to government idea on how clubs should behave, we don't need to look beyond the Etihad and yet how many attempts are there going to be to ruin it.... Not proven won't do! Guilty or innocent?