PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Bez said:
Does anyone know anything else about Murray Rosen's disciplinary tribunal in 2006 over allegations of professional misconduct that I believe were related to an alleged conflict of interest.

Murray Rosen is the chair for the PL panel.
Click to expand...

Details here - https://archive.ph/imSRL

He represented 2 people who wanted to buy Heckler and Koch and formed a consortium to do so. Then 2 members of the consortium arranged a deal to buy the company on their own.

The people who got cut out of the deal sued and hired Rosen.

After the suit they then alleged he was being considered for a job at the law firm that represented the opposition, where he had worked as a consultant.

  • On 31 March 2006, having heard the prosecution evidence, the Disciplinary Tribunal ruled that there was no case for Mr Rosen to answer and the charges were dismissed
 
Last edited:
BAB.DAB said:
josimarfootball.com

The trillion-dollar gambling game - josimarfootball.com

Is the Premier League used as part of an unprecedented money-laundering operation?
josimarfootball.com josimarfootball.com
So you don’t think match fixing happens.
But it has happened in the past.
So how do you know its not happening now?
Click to expand...
M18CTID said:
Well it could've been hushed up by the PL and instead of being sacked in disgrace he was politely asked to leave. There's always been a whiff around Walton and the way he used to ref our games - particularly against both Merseyside clubs - would suggest there was something not quite right. As for working for BT Sport, you're having a laugh aren't you? They'll have practically any **** on their show, as evidenced by the fact that they've even given that obese Rag prick Howson airtime in the past.

Are you saying that there have never been any bent refs or at the very least any bent refereeing displays in the Premier League? Is that a hill you seriously want to die on?
Click to expand...
Walton was a terrible referee. I saw every single shit perfomance he put in against us at Goodison. But I’m getting confused here.

Now you are saying he wasn’t sacked but politely asked to leave. So supposedly he was exposed as corrupt but was allowed to carry on reffing until the Saturday before he took a dream appointment in the USA, even picking his final fixture of choice.

Ffs this worse that FiF telling us half of our title winning defence are match fixers.
 
Prophet of Doom said:
Walton was a terrible referee. I saw every single shit perfomance he put in against us at Goodison. But I’m getting confused here.

Now you are saying he wasn’t sacked but politely asked to leave. So supposedly he was exposed as corrupt but was allowed to carry on reffing until the Saturday before he took a dream appointment in the USA, even picking his final fixture of choice.

Ffs this worse that FiF telling us half of our title winning defence are match fixers.
Click to expand...
Does football have a problem with gambling?
Does football have a problem with match fixing?
Can you give me a honest answer?
 
Prophet of Doom said:
Walton was a terrible referee. I saw every single shit perfomance he put in against us at Goodison. But I’m getting confused here.

Now you are saying he wasn’t sacked but politely asked to leave. So supposedly he was exposed as corrupt but was allowed to carry on reffing until the Saturday before he took a dream appointment in the USA, even picking his final fixture of choice.

Ffs this worse that FiF telling us half of our title winning defence are match fixers.
Click to expand...
Does it fucking matter how he was asked to leave if he was sacked?

Fact is that you don't know the circumstances surrounding Walton's departure any more than I do.

I'll ask you again - do you believe that there has never been a bent refereeing display in the Premier League in its entire history? By extension, do you also think that even though there have been many examples of corrupt refereeing in other countries that that could never happen over here? In the most financially lucrative league on the planet?
 
Bez said:
Does anyone know anything else about Murray Rosen's disciplinary tribunal in 2006 over allegations of professional misconduct that I believe were related to an alleged conflict of interest.

Murray Rosen is the chair for the PL panel.
Click to expand...

Gun runner ;)

Top QC in firing line over guns lawsuit

www.telegraph.co.uk www.telegraph.co.uk

No wonder he supports Arsenal.

Bernie Ecclestone was also a client of his, so obviously swims in shark infested waters.
 
lancs blue said:
Some of his stuff is a bit outlandish but as @Prestwich_Blue has mentioned he was the source of a lot of the info that resulted in Walton being punted in 2012.
Click to expand...

I doubt this is true.

The PL and PGMOL would want actual proof of corruption from reputable sources not from an internet conspiracy theorist. Not least Walton who would be entitled to a throrough and proper investigation by a tribunal/panel or else he could sue.

He would also not be employed by a sports broadcaster.
 
argyle said:
I doubt this is true.

The PL and PGMOL would want actual proof of corruption from reputable sources not from an internet conspiracy theorist. Not least Walton who would be entitled to a throrough and proper investigation by a tribunal/panel or else he could sue.

He would also not be employed by a sports broadcaster.
Click to expand...
No doubt they'd need something more concrete but it's also worth noting that after Everton complained so vigorously about Clattenburg's refereeing in the 2007 Merseyside derby at Goodison, they succeeded in getting him banned from reffing any Everton games for a full 7 years afterwards. Now I'm not sure if Everton were in possession of any evidence pointing to Clattenburg being biased against them (although some of his decisions were dodgy as fuck in that match) but by complaining they got him removed from their games for a very lengthy period of time. And while I say fair play to them for succeeding in that, it's unfair on all the other clubs who had to put up with Clattenburg reffing their games during that 7 year spell.

Oh, and fast forward a couple of years from that 2007 derby debacle to one of Hughes's last matches in charge of City before he was sacked - a 3-3 draw at Bolton. That was a match reffed by Clattenburg too and he wrongly gave Bellamy a second yellow card for diving when any fucker at that end of the pitch could clearly see that he was fouled. What followed after that match were a series of revelations by City's management staff about comments made by Clattenburg around that game, which if true would've presented a clear case of him being biased against us when reffing that match. Much of that story has now been largely forgotten - not least because Hughes was sacked a week later and that became a much bigger story - but I remember hearing about it at the time and thinking if it had substance then there's no way that prick should be anywhere near a football field.
 
Last edited:
lancs blue said:
Some of his stuff is a bit outlandish but as @Prestwich_Blue has mentioned he was the source of a lot of the info that resulted in Walton being punted in 2012.
Click to expand...
Ignore them. Sheikh Mansour & Khaldoon Al Mubarak don't waste time & money on lunatics and fantasists. And they've considered it worth spending a lot of money on his services.

And he's told me things that sounded bizarre at the time but subsequently were proven to be correct and I've had independent verification of.
 
argyle said:
I doubt this is true.

The PL and PGMOL would want actual proof of corruption from reputable sources not from an internet conspiracy theorist. Not least Walton who would be entitled to a throrough and proper investigation by a tribunal/panel or else he could sue.

He would also not be employed by a sports broadcaster.
Click to expand...

Everyone is so black and white these days. There is a fuck load of grey in between that no-one knows about and could easily explain either of the two extremes being discussed. Doesn't mean any possibility can't be entertained.
 
Ric said:
Let's keep the thread on topic, and not derail it again with arguments about that FootballIsFixed guy's conspiracy theories.
Click to expand...
I do not see what these lunatic theories have to do with our case and as said previously, a minority of our fan base does the club no favours in bringing them up.

Clear and irrefutable evidence, if so we have nothing to worry about.
 
M18CTID said:
Funny how he keeps avoiding those questions. Anyone would think he might be a ref himself, and a fucking bent one at that!
Click to expand...
I’m not avoiding nothing. Show me where a PL referee has been found to be corrupt and I will shut up.

We keep on hearing that FIF has all this evidence but never publishes it.
 
Gorton_Tubster said:
If football is fixed, and City are winning title after title... Are some of you guys saying we're cheating?
Click to expand...
Not at all. There have been "problems" with officiating as long as the PL has existed. I thought that in the early years it was a question of undue influence rather than outright corruption because it became increasingly obvious that the GPC was allowed to influence the selection of refs to an extent that no-one else could approach. For the past few years it is decisions which have raised questions and eyebrows and every week we have several scandalous incidents, with many involving the rags' or dippers' matches. Is it just a bad day for the officials? Is it bribery, by betting syndicates? Or another form of corruption? Is there "undue influence" allowed to some (2?) clubs to ensure favourable and sympathetic officiating? I suspect that City's defence to the PL charges will seek primarily to prove the charges are completely devoid of any merit, but secondarily that the financial regulations are not concerned with financial stability but with the maintenance of a football elite and that they therefore are part of a mechanism which is allied to "undue influence" on officials to maintain specific club's predominance. So, GT, in my opinion it certainly isn't City who are the cheats.
 
StillBluessinceHydeRoad said:
Not at all. There have been "problems" with officiating as long as the PL has existed. I thought that in the early years it was a question of undue influence rather than outright corruption because it became increasingly obvious that the GPC was allowed to influence the selection of refs to an extent that no-one else could approach. For the past few years it is decisions which have raised questions and eyebrows and every week we have several scandalous incidents, with many involving the rags' or dippers' matches. Is it just a bad day for the officials? Is it bribery, by betting syndicates? Or another form of corruption? Is there "undue influence" allowed to some (2?) clubs to ensure favourable and sympathetic officiating? I suspect that City's defence to the PL charges will seek primarily to prove the charges are completely devoid of any merit, but secondarily that the financial regulations are not concerned with financial stability but with the maintenance of a football elite and that they therefore are part of a mechanism which is allied to "undue influence" on officials to maintain specific club's predominance. So, GT, in my opinion it certainly isn't City who are the cheats.
Click to expand...
Spot on. Refs giving penalties against united then not officiating their games for over a year, then giving them a soft penalty on their reappearance.

Scudamore openly saying they'd like a variety of PL winners. That doesn't happen by chance.

Cameras or camera angles not being available for controversial incidents. Apologies after the event for blantatly incorrect decisions. The Adebayor and Aguero incidents. Etcetera, etcetera.
 
Gorton_Tubster said:
If football is fixed, and City are winning title after title... Are some of you guys saying we're cheating?
Click to expand...

It's part of why we needed Pep in charge.

The biggest risk is always incidents around your own goal. Pep keeps us up the other end of the pitch and we keep the ball, so it reduces the chance of red cards.

Reduces though, doesn't get rid of.

We still don't get penalties we should, get called for minimal contact at times (eg Haaland at Anfield) and get dodgy decisions against us (Rashford). But the way we play minimises it, and makes it so that if a ref really wants to do us over, they have to do something ridiculous, something 'clear and obvious'.
 
Im not saying there isnt bias btw. Just that if they're fixing it so that utd, or lfc win the titles, they're doing a shit job.

It fits more with unorganised bias, rather than fixing of games to make someone win a title. IE Utd get more pens at old trafford... I dont think that is a written instruction that is handed down to all refs, or even in a meeting of referees all being told to give utd more penalties.

Anyway, I hope we find out one day because something we all agree on is the decisions are beyond odd, or wrong.. There's definitely something amiss.
 
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