PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

ysmsa said:
Actually can't wait for the CL to start again.

The PL and it's corruption, cheating, selective VAR, creative timekeeping, bookings, penalties etc etc all generally favouring 2 fuckin Clubs can fuck right off.
Click to expand...
I actually like the Champion league a lot more than our own corrupt cesspool of a league. Just look at Sky, rags and dippers every Super Sunday and it's LIVE!!! Bullshit.

I don't mind if we make top 4 and win the Champions league every single season.
 
flb said:
In what way ? Will Bellingham choose us over Liverpool with this ? Or will signing for Liverpool be the safer option. I’d say it’s far from scaremongering.
Click to expand...
Wait & see. No point in speculating doom and gloom pal. City always come out on top. Keep the faith. Up the blues.
 
SilvaisSkyBlue said:
Again our clubs very existence is under threat, again the usual suspects are sharpening their knives.

Submitting their articles and talking as if guilt has been proven by the latest batch of nonsense.

All done because we upset the status quo the red clubs thought would last forever! Not forgetting a large dose of good old fashioned xenophobia/racism.

Let’s do what Manchester City and us as fans have always done and answer these cretins with our wholehearted support at every game and in every interaction with these morons.

Time to show them what our club means to us in every game until this latest FArce is ended once and for all…
Click to expand...

I think existence is a bit of a stretch. Whatever happens, the club will still be standing.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
And no problem about getting away tickets to Nyde United and Radcliffe Borough!

Perhaps one of our legal eagles could elaborate but I've just had a quick read about limitation periods and they seem to be related more to contracts and deeds.

But the key thing is that a court won't unilaterally impose them; they have be used a defence. So A sues B under a contract that doesn't have an explicit limitation clause. B's defence is the event they're being sued over was more than 6 years ago. The court then decides whether that's a valid defence (there can be exceptions to the six-year rule n certain circumstances).

If you recall from the CAShearing, our first two lines of defence (which were about as effective as Cancelo's defending) were around the admissibility of the emails and the 6-year limitation. CAS dismissed the first but partly upheld the limitation defence, setting a limit to the period that could be reviewed.

I suspect, as I said, that it would suit the PL just fine if we were punished and challenged that in court, that we had to resort to a defence mainly involving a limitation period.
Click to expand...
Stefan said the limitation is 6 years in English Law. However if one party feels the other one concealed information / lied then they could go back further. The charges seem to indicate that the EPL think we have been dishonest / lied . . . .
 
flb said:
Not a problem mate tbh , but you know aswell as i do that this will run for years, simple question mate , if you were Bellingham as an example ,would you sign for us in the close season ?
Click to expand...
This has already run for years, who cares about the next Jack Rodwell?
 
domalino said:
Page 38 of the CAS verdict.

The matter of the authenticity of the emails was resolved because Manchester City provided originals and the panel compared the originals to the leaks and found them to be parts of emails which had names, addresses dates, CC's removed. They specifically say they compared all leaked emails from der Speigel and the only discrepancy was email 4 which was actually 2 together, but that didn't change the meaning of them.

"MCFC explicitly acknowledged the emails produced on 18 May 2020 were authentic"

"Mr Widdowson and Mr Pearce acknowledged the veracity of the leaked emails in their testimony. Mr Widdowsdon explicitly did so. Mr Pearce did not, but by referring to his thought process in drafting certain sections of the emails the panel finds he implicitly acknowledged the veracity of the leaked emails."
Click to expand...
So we admitted the emails were correct but they found us not guilty? Job done.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
I'm back home now so can have a look at this shit in more detail but my understanding is that just because there isn't an explicit limitation, doesn't mean one can't be applied in law. The accepted limit in English law is six years so a court could potentially apply that in this case. That would possibly disqualify anything that happened prior to February 2017 therefore.

In the CAS case, I seem to remember that they looked at the whole of the latest financial year within that six year period, so that would include anything in and after the 2016/17 financial year.

We know who's pulling the PL's strings here. My suspicion about this case has always been that the PL want to escape with their honour satisfied without rocking the boat any more than necessary. That was the case with UEFA, who offered us a soft settlement which we refused.

So if this 'independent commission' were to say that all the events were time-barred, then the PL can say they tried and loads of mud sticks without any actual examination of the charges and evidence for and against. We would be forever tainted and that would probably suit our US-owned rivals even more than a six or seven figure fine.

With UEFA, we knew what the charges related to, courtesy of Der Spiegel, and it was easy to see how ridiculous they were. I said at the time that those emails were very selective and very much 'nudge, nudge, wink, wink'', casting aspersions without any real evidence. CAS comprehensively confirmed that view of course.

It's hard to say in this case as the charges seem quite extensive and appear to relate to matters not in the public domain. It could be we have done significant things wrong or it could be that they've picked up little things that are open to interpretation. It could be the difference between the equivalent of a major, deliberate attempt to defraud VAT and a simple misunderstanding about a VAT calculation on mileage claims. We'll find out in time I guess.

Not sure if it's already been pointed out but, unlike UEFA and CAS, there is no arbitration in the PL rules. So this could easily end up in court. We could yet see Pannick in the courts of London again.

The other thing that struck me was that this seems to be a replay of the events of 1904-1906, when the FA were determined to find something wrong at the nouveau riche, upstart club that had upset the Football League aristocracy like Aston Villa by nearly winning a League and FA Cup double in 1904, just ten years into its existence.

Billy Meredith spilled the beans on illegal payments to players and we got absolutely hammered, while other clubs doing exactly the same thing (i.e. pretty well all of them) were unaffected. I'm sure if the PL spent four years going through Liverpool's, united's Arsenal's and particularly Chelsea's books, they'd find something they didn't like. But we know they won't turn that stone over to see what crawls out.
Click to expand...
I've never forgiven Villa for that. Cunts.
 
If we are found guilty…..and I have the utmost confidence in our owners…..are the clubs who received some of this supposed over inflated sponsorship money as transfer fees going to pay the money back. They were happy to take it !

I am sure we have circumnavigated some of the regulations….but that’s why we pay for the best accountants whose job it is to save their customers from paying avoidable costs…….just like rest of the league.

I am worried about this because the hateful 8 have made no secret of the outcome they want to see……but have to believe that we can trust the process…..similar to CAS.

Is it a coincidence that there were lots of optimistic links with us and Bellingham circulating over the weekend !
 
Last edited:
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