PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

M18CTID said:
Despite racist cunts like Tebas, I’ve always felt that over the past decade or so City have been one of the more popular non-Spanish teams in Spain. All this talk of City and Chelsea being plastic clubs that fans of all other clubs don’t respect in any way doesn’t quite hold true when you speak to genuine fans of other clubs. I was in a bar in Madrid the night Chelsea beat Bayern in the 2012 CL Final. Most were locals and almost to a man they wanted Chelsea to win. Sure, I don’t expect us to be universally liked - successful clubs never are - but most of the hatred and vitriol is coming from dickhead journalists who are up the arse of the so-called “history clubs” (and Spurs!) and non-match going plastic fans of those same clubs.
Click to expand...
I was in deepest agricultural Spain, eating in a tiny village eatery a short while back. In walk a local family with the two teenage boys, both sporting (knock off I think) City shirts with Haaland on the back.
Our profile gets bigger, our owners play a long game. Keep playing beautiful football, keep winning trophy’s, keep buying the occasional worldly talent, extend the ground, build the fanzone and hotel, open the CoOp venue. We will prevail.
in the meantime just enjoy the pathetic teeth gnashing from the usual suspects be they ex footballers or those paid to sell clicks or spread propaganda.
it’s about the time all blue posts for the next few weeks were full on positivity and joy. Ignore the haters and revel in their misery.
 
Dirty Harry said:
Have we actually come out and stated the ‘Arsenal fan’ bit or is that just the way the media have twisted it ?

I’d be more inclined to believe it may be because there’s a lack of a truly independent investigation. No independent prosecution. No independent judge to adjudicate, or something along those lines.
Click to expand...
I am sure that, as usual, the issue has been misreported. The latest Times story reads as if it was leaked out by someone in the PL camp or by someone at LFC and MUFC who is being kept in the loop by Richard Masters. The leaker could even be someone at the EFL who was contacted by someone at the PL (not a surprise).
Remember that Martin Ziegler and the Times football team was also a recipient of information which leaked out of the UEFA investigation (as was Tariq Panja at the New York Times). The UEFA leak was twisted to suggest they were going to throw the book at City (but as it transpired UEFA had no evidence)
I agree that City have probably obected to the entire process which is totally unfair and does not represent natural justice. The PL, which has been leading a witchunt against us, is being allowed to appoint its own panel to adjudicate on the matter. That is ridiculous. The "Arsenal fan claim" must be a red herring.
If someone at the PL has leaked the story and briefed our commercial rivals (as happened with UEFA) then they have just scored a major own goal which will undermine their own case. I don't believe the timing (right after the Madrid victory) was an accident.
 
do we have any idea for the potential timeline for all of this?
Do you think it is likely if we are found non guilty of these charges we go after some of these knobs for defamation or libel?
 
SebastianBlue said:
It is a nonsensical point in the context of the discussion.
Click to expand...
Well surely going of our logic that supposedly we want a different barrister because he's an arsenal fan when our lawyer is one is stupid isn't it? I'd say its quite a relevant point of discussion to be had.
 
Last edited:
Bluemoonadam said:
Well surely going of our logic that supposedly we want a different barrister because he's an arsenal fan when our lawyer is one is stupid isn't it?
Click to expand...
I'm sure I read that the Arsenal barrister has an existing role within the PL organization, which is the reason we're objecting to his appointment, not because he's an Arsenal fan
 
Bluemoonadam said:
Well surely going of our logic that supposedly we want a different barrister because he's an arsenal fan when our lawyer is one is stupid isn't it? I'd say its quite a relevant point of discussion to be had.
Click to expand...

The ‘Arsenal Fan’ line is simply an attempt to rubbish a series of challenges we’ve put to this case.

Rosen is actually a member at Arsenal, which is a little more than just being an average fan - and we’re questioning his impartiality as an active member of an organisation we know has historically played a central role in trying to get us removed from the League.

But this is just a small part of the picture, intended to demonstrate the entire case is a poorly constructed, unprofessional shambles.

The far more concerning challenge for the PL (which clearly none of the MSN are remotely interested in leading with) is the one around being charged against a set of rules that weren’t in place at the time of the alleged ‘infringements’ - which if supported, could lead to a number of the charges being dismissed out of hand.

But despite the implied pettiness from the MSN around our defence resting on the fact we’re not happy Rosen is an Arsenal fan, this is standard legal practice - to undermine the rigour and impartiality of a case (and those behind it), thereby supporting any subsequent arguments we make on the actual substance - whilst seeding the idea that the opposite side can’t be trusted.
 
chaddblue said:
Exactly! The way I see it city are challenging many aspects of the charges including the appointment of the individual.. which I thought was because he already has a role in the PL, not because he’s an arsenal fan

The media are going with the arsenal fan angle to undermine our case and make us look petty.. and if you look at the response on Twitter etc it’s worked a treat as it’s convinced multitudes of morons that we’re more guilty than ever
Click to expand...
Spot on in my view.
 
Bluemoonadam said:
Well surely going of our logic that supposedly we want a different barrister because he's an arsenal fan when our lawyer is one is stupid isn't it? I'd say its quite a relevant point of discussion to be had.
Click to expand...
No, it isn’t, because one person is being paid not to be fair and impartial to all parties, and one has been appointed to be fair and impartial to all parties.

You are trying to create a false equivalency.

The point remains nonsensical.
 
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