It’s perfectly possible. Thinking back to Camilla-gate and Squidgy-gate and those excruciatingly embarrassing recorded conversations from nearly thirty years ago ! But even if 100% true all it would do is personally damage a few individuals. It wouldn‘t help City defeat the charges laid at their door Or bring down a house of cards. But I would not be surprised if City had some dirt on a range of individuals/organisations gathered in all sorts of ways. Khaldoon’s comment ”when they say something, we know” was pretty clear. I also wouldn’t be surprised if representations (and evidence ) are being made to Government with respect to future regulation.In game conversations are highly unlikely but I suspect that City will have gathered a raft of interesting evidence. When you know someone is coming after you it is the logical move.
In what way we're you convinced m8?I have thought for some time that City will have been compiling evidence. With such widespread corruption in the PL it cannot have been too hard.
Pep’s presser confirmed for me that we have the ammunition to bury them if required.
Top notchBrock of Gibraltar?
Abu Dhabi secret service recordings? What have you heard bud?Have people lost their minds.
This secret recording being used as blackmail story is complete fantasy.
Can we get this thread back on serious comments about the charges we face instead of fucking nonsense about Abu Dhabi secret service recordings !
Abu Dhabi secret service recordings?
Make of this what you will, but I've just been privy to some startling information that would blow the lid off PGMOL and the power brokers at the Premier League, if it became public. It involves a recording of a conversation between the match day referee and VAR official at a recent away match, a recording that is now in the hands of City.
It's my firm belief that City have compiled a dossier so incendiary, that the Premier League will have no choice but to totally exonerate the Club of any wrongdoing. If they don't, this is going nuclear. Either way, we hold all the cards and this explains why we're so bullish about the eventual outcome. The Premier League are on the back foot, and in my opinion, are currently lobbying the membership as to how best to quietly end the process. I have also been advised that at least one of the "Nasty 9" has had board level discussions with City, distancing themselves from the others in the cabal.
Pep's press conference tells us all we need to know. Watch it again, look at the anger and barely controllable rage in the mans eyes. His attitude wasn't based upon him being reassured about some poxy finances & bullshit charges, it was because he KNOWS exactly what is coming.
Sit back and enjoy the ride Blues.
He can't tell you, because if he does he will have to kill you :-)Abu Dhabi secret service recordings? What have you heard bud?
Was he the same guy that supplied Leicester's PEDs?This could be the crux of @Dodge 's post, advise from a match commander to ignore/not give VAR a look at it.
Yet it just goes to show yet again that people are happy to repeat what they've heard in the general media even if it's false. We're always going to suffer from that.Good effort mate, but can you get them to correct this part as I’m quite sure the charges weren’t overturned due to timing issues were they?
That was eventually overturned by the court of arbitration in sport (CAS) due to timing issues outside of the permitted legal process timelines for investigation.
Author says he is going to change itYet it just goes to show yet again that people are happy to repeat what they've heard in the general media even if it's false. We're always going to suffer from that.
I agree with this FWIWI'm 50 pages behind so someone might have answered this.
If not:
The relationship between City and the PL is essentially contractual. The regulations that govern our participation within that league are the terms of the contract. One of those terms is that in the event of an alleged breach of the rules the matter is referred to an independent panel, from which an appeal lies to a further panel.
We are said to be in breach of those terms. The fact that the terms themselves do not contain a limitation clause makes no difference, because the Limitation Act says that if you are alleging a breach of contract you must do it within six years.
So, there is a limitation period, and it is six years.
However.
The limitation act also says that if you are bringing a claim based on the fraud of the other party the limitation period does not start to run until you had knowledge of the fraud. So the six year period begins not with the date of the breaches, but the date those breaches became known to the PL - IF they were breaches brought about by fraud.
This means that the allegation of fraud is relevant in two ways. First, given that our accounts have been passed by an auditor, the PL have to allege fraud in order to make their case stick. Secondly, if they can't establish fraud, the limitation act means anything before February 2017 is time-barred.
They have charged us with something extremely serious. The consequences for City if the case succeeds are potentially devastating. The consequences for the PL if the charges fail is also potentially devastating.
Good, I'm not implying he did it on purpose or anything but just goes to show how the media works and how we'll always struggle unless we're more aggressive.Author says he is going to change it
You make a good point. The narrative is set if you say things often enough regardless of what the truth is. The CAS judgment remains a trove of positive and negative detail of the case, City's defence and the result. It is very illuminating especially in respect of City's own submissions against the severe allegations made there but people don't seem to take the time to actually read it.Good, I'm not implying he did it on purpose or anything but just goes to show how the media works and how we'll always struggle unless we're more aggressive.
You then have Barca with their not dodgy at all referee payments coming out straight away saying legal action will be taken against anyone who tries to spoil the clubs image...
Paddy Power taking the piss again :)
And for time barring purposes of the panel agrees to treat as fraud , then when did they first have knowledge of it. IE how far back would the 6 years go ?I agree with this FWIW
Paddy Power taking the piss again :)
Agree it's most likely nonsense, but I "think" the broadcasters only hear one half of the conversation (presumably the VAR side as they instantly know when checks are started and completed).All of the broadcasting teams have access to the VAR officials and referees, it's why commentators sometimes know what's happening without there being further guidance on screen. I doubt "recordings" are hard to come by, anything we "leaked" would be known to about 100+ pundits, and the referees would have to be idiots to do anything in plain sight.
They would say they first learned of potential "fraud" in 2018. So had until 2024 to charge ie everything is in time.And for time barring purposes of the panel agrees to treat as fraud , then when did they first have knowledge of it. IE how far back would the 6 years go ?
Thanks. But if they first learned of a potential fraud in 2018 could they only look back as far as 2012 , or am I not understanding the time barring thing at all. LolThey would say they first learned of potential "fraud" in 2018. So had until 2024 to charge ie everything is in time.