PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

jamesha said:
Thank you! I'm feeling guilty about the 10-1 now!
Seriously though I would far rather have a pint with a fan from a team like Huddersfield than one of the Sky favourites any day of the week as the talk would be about genuine football rather than financial nonsense.
Good luck for the season - do you think that you will be able escape relegation? - big game against Wigan tomorrow.
Click to expand...
I'll be honest, I'm more confident in you winning your battle than I am in us succeeding in ours!

Oh, and don't be ever be sorry about the 10-1 as many wear it as a of badge of honour believe it or not. Having had a good lurk on here for a couple of days now I can see that "York away" is a bit of a legend for you guys, and, well, you're our York. If every Town fan that ever claimed to be at that game was proven to be correct, then you'd swiftly be getting charge number 116 for failing to declare an extra 40,000 away supporters on the attendance that day! Thankfully for my long term sanity it was just before my time :)
 
jamesha said:
My understanding is that ex-City employees were able to access City's "Scout7" system on a number of occasions after they had joined Liverpool. If that is correct it might not be what is considered a classic hacking attack but does show poor practices in the IT systems. Any access should be revoked as soon as it is no longer needed by the individual to perform their job role and some form of multi-factor authentication should also have been implemented with the token handed back or disabled once the individual leaves.

I will concede that no IT security system is unhackable I think it is fair to say that with a best practice security policy implemented, enforced and regularly updated it would have been far harder for Pinto to gain access to City's emails and he may well have moved on to easier targets.
Click to expand...
It was apparently "hundreds" of occasions.

Having poor security doesn't make something less illegal. Leave your door open and you might be more likely to get burgled, but it's still burglary.
 
BeerIsTheBest said:
My understanding UEFA FP from 2011, EPL from 2013. Either way if they want to look at Manchinis contract they probably will as I would imagine the years cover the stuff time barred at CAS. As other posters have said it’s a small charge when set against all edged sponsor income shanergins and fraud on a grand scale for 9 years.
Click to expand...
Raises another issue potentially. In the businesses I worked in nobody kept pay records beyond 7 years.
 
SWP's back said:
Yeah but restraint of trade comes in on this one.
Click to expand...
In what way? Are the current PL rules a form of restraint of trade, or is any punishment handed down potentially a restraint of trade? Could a severe points deduction which sees us relegated been seen as restraint of trade as it forces us to play at a level below what the team merits?
 
jamesha said:
My understanding is that ex-City employees were able to access City's "Scout7" system on a number of occasions after they had joined Liverpool. If that is correct it might not be what is considered a classic hacking attack but does show poor practices in the IT systems. Any access should be revoked as soon as it is no longer needed by the individual to perform their job role and some form of multi-factor authentication should also have been implemented with the token handed back or disabled once the individual leaves.

I will concede that no IT security system is unhackable I think it is fair to say that with a best practice security policy implemented, enforced and regularly updated it would have been far harder for Pinto to gain access to City's emails and he may well have moved on to easier targets.
Click to expand...
My understanding was that the ex employees used their old colleagues log ins and passwords.
 
Ian Cheeseman's tweeted that the "big hitters" are at Pep's press conference at 1.30. Does this include Ferran? Khaldoon?
 
Blueboy73 said:
Any trial/process under Civil Law is based on the principles equity and natural justice and there are 5 pillars of natural justice.
The 5 pillars of natural justice basically your rights, are; Notification (of charges), Preparation (time to prepare), Representation (in this case Lord Pannick KC), Presentation (present your case) and Appeal (if unhappy with the outcome).
You would have to notify someone in advance of the charges - ergo you couldn't turn up on the day with fresh charges.
Click to expand...
You are charged with owning a football club whilst being an Arab.
 
Apart from MCFC what other companies were involved in the Mancini payments?. Just trying to understand what the PL are looking at here.
 
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