I‘ve heard latest AI software that can sing or speak with whatever you program it to do but it’s far from mimicking real human voice. This the most extreme you can go atm . Also logically there’ll be a night and day difference in background noise unless both parties are at the same room and space. You can easily see that in oscilloscope ...... or modified in any way.
Wait that might need a laymans term explanation..
Keypoint.. they implicated us on fraud now in 2023 right?
or the cutoff date is 2019?
Its mainly taking the piss out of them for even thinking this way. Passed them by like ;)The responses don’t demonstrate much intelligence from the dipper fans who think it’s just us that Paddy Power are taking the piss out of.
Are you a worrier by nature?Seems to be pestering out in the news lately. Less and less City investigation news. No Premier League updates. Expecting the worst.
Id say City have gently put the squeeze on the media mate , innocent until proven guilty, it wont stop the independent tossers who post on twitter under the name of journalism though. The damage to our reputation was done years ago, its just ramped upto a frenzy now.Seems to be pestering out in the news lately. Less and less City investigation news. No Premier League updates. Expecting the worst.
Seems to be pestering out in the news lately. Less and less City investigation news. No Premier League updates. Expecting the worst.
That’s because it’s all bullshit. No concrete evidence so nothing to investigate.Seems to be pestering out in the news lately. Less and less City investigation news. No Premier League updates. Expecting the worst.
I hope I'm not being excessively hubristic here but my view is that the charges, while potentially serious in theory, are actually thin.I'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.
I have the same impression. Totally toned down in just a few days (Except on twitter and forums etc).Seems to be pestering out in the news lately. Less and less City investigation news. No Premier League updates. Expecting the worst.
Yep, life's short, don't waste one second of it on morons.Last few days I have seen hundreds of baseless comments on Social Media.
Plenty of knuckle scrapers who cannot establish the difference between charges and evidence.
I replied to some but I would need King Canute to help me out.
Then it dawned me just to sit back watch the fuckers eat themselves from within with their pure jealousy towards a club who have rendered the cartel to the level of an ashtray on a motorbike.
Now reads: "That was eventually overturned by the court of arbitration in sport (CAS) due to the failure of UEFA to establish such serious allegations with some matters being deemed to be outside UEFA's time barring period."Good man & thanks again for helping us laymen understand what’s occurring :)
Certainly can’t rule that out…They have already got the verdict they want and that is guilty as charges in the public eye and arena again.
All about reputational damage, a hope players walk, a hope Pep walks, a hope it puts signings off and a hope sponsors walk.
The more I think about this the more I think it’s a sham suite of charges with little to no merit whatsoever but they know it will never get to a stage where the charges are picked apart.
You've answered your own questions. The core of the charges are obviously about Etihad, Etisalat etc for the reasons you say re image rights/Toure/Mancini. Thats why the dates in charges 1 are what they are. I've said I don't see how they will be able to prove such charges but those are almost certainly the matters to which they relate.I hope I'm not being excessively hubristic here but my view is that the charges, while potentially serious in theory, are actually thin.
The image rights stuff (which was the one I was originally most concerned about) was being discussed with us, by UEFA, in 2015. I can't imagine it wasn't also known to the PL therefore, who were the FFP licensor. If UEFA felt we were trying to defraud them (in the criminal sense) then they'd have charged us back in 2018. They didn't though.
With Mancini's contract, that was around 1% of our 2010-11 revenue and about 0.75% of our 2012 revenue. It's hardly Enron levels.
CAS has already ruled that our Etihad sponsorship (a) was broadly fair value and (b) not funded by ADUG, but by the Abu Dhabi government. So I can't see them having much luck with Aabar, that might have been one of the time-barred sponsorships. And Etisalat, the other, had already been discussed with UEFA, according to the CAS output.
I’ve not been on Twitter since about an hour after the news broke last monday.Last few days I have seen hundreds of baseless comments on Social Media.
Plenty of knuckle scrapers who cannot establish the difference between charges and evidence.
I replied to some but I would need King Canute to help me out.
Then it dawned me just to sit back watch the fuckers eat themselves from within with their pure jealousy towards a club who have rendered the cartel to the level of an ashtray on a motorbike.
Nice one :)Now reads: "That was eventually overturned by the court of arbitration in sport (CAS) due to the failure of UEFA to establish such serious allegations with some matters being deemed to be outside UEFA's time barring period."
I hope I'm not being excessively hubristic here but my view is that the charges, while potentially serious in theory, are actually thin.
The image rights stuff (which was the one I was originally most concerned about) was being discussed with us, by UEFA, in 2015. I can't imagine it wasn't also known to the PL therefore, who were the FFP licensor. If UEFA felt we were trying to defraud them (in the criminal sense) then they'd have charged us back in 2018. They didn't though.
With Mancini's contract, that was around 1% of our 2010-11 revenue and about 0.75% of our 2012 revenue. It's hardly Enron levels.
CAS has already ruled that our Etihad sponsorship (a) was broadly fair value and (b) not funded by ADUG, but by the Abu Dhabi government. So I can't see them having much luck with Aabar, that might have been one of the time-barred sponsorships. And Etisalat, the other, had already been discussed with UEFA, according to the CAS output.