PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Heath Park]

Reading that i just realised that the old first division the last time we won it was 1968.The rags 1967.So we were the last team from Manchester to win the old first division.
Premier League winners there are 7 in 31 years.City,rags,dippers,Arsenal,Blackburn,Chelsea and Leicester.
Old first division winners.10 in 31 years.City,rags,scouse,Arsenal,Ipswich,Derby,Leeds,Forrest,Villa and Everton so only 3 teams more in the same years.
So the titles were shared a bit more but not really as much as i thought.

Ah but with the existing Fair Play rules that will drop to maybe 4 teams in the next 30 years I reckon...

 

[cheekybids]

Can you imagine. Sheikh Mansour rocks up, looks at his watch and says "How long will this take? It's just that I'm seeing the Prime Minister in an hour about our plan to invest £10bn in the UK, then we're off to lunch at Buckingham Palace with the King".

Or you realise the legal fees will include my hourly rate.

 

[NMB]

I believe the Government are already very active behind the scenes with what is happening at the PL. They are pushing for an independent regulator and City are the only club supporting them at the moment. It was pretty clear from the last Commmons Select Committee that Richard Masters has had his card marked. In fact all political parties are united in their desire for an independent regulator. I am sure they are aware of the dirty tricks campaign behind the PL investigation which Labour MP Mark Hendrick (a City fan) described as a "drive-by-shooting" by the "Red shirts cartel."

Speaking of which we should perhaps all lobby our MPs to ask questions in the House about why Manchester City are being hounded constantly. 115 charges, widely reported yet none proven as yet. If City were a young black man in London this would (rightly) be considered a massive scandal.

 

[laserblue]

I believe the Government are already very active behind the scenes with what is happening at the PL. They are pushing for an independent regulator and City are the only club supporting them at the moment. It was pretty clear from the last Commmons Select Committee that Richard Masters has had his card marked. In fact all political parties are united in their desire for an independent regulator. I am sure they are aware of the dirty tricks campaign behind the PL investigation which Labour MP Mark Hendrick (a City fan) described as a "drive-by-shooting" by the "Red shirts cartel."

Masters is simply a useful idiot for the American owned clubs in red. As is Levy by the sound of it.

 

[Tbilisi]

I hope they charge us a little earlier next season, maybe November time.

 

[Grassland Blue]

UEFA were shot down.
The FA will either be shot down or withdraw their accusations.
Are there any other organisations lurking who might want to have a pop at City?
Anyone who has been behind and encouraged the attempts to ruin our good name should be made to publicly apologise either on t.v. or by a written and signed letter in the press.
Various people in the media should also be brought to book for their part in 'fanning the flames'.
I know none of this will happen of course.

 

[petrusha]

Absolutely. The forum is a better place for their views.

But I do wish they would try to explain to non-legals in a less legal way, sometimes. 99% of the people on here don't have any legal training, so sometimes pick up the wrong end of the legal argument stick purely from the way it is explained. A better way to explain the right to appeal would be to say there IS a right of appeal in certain, unlikely circumstances, rather than saying there is no right of appeal except in certain, unlikely circumstances. People are looking to the experts on here for comfort as well as legal explanation. A little comfort would go a long way on a particularly stressful issue, imho.

My point is more psychological than legal maybe.

Maybe I have no point.

Maybe there is no point at all, anywhere.

Philosophical as well as psychological then :)

Obviously, I'm not going to leave this without some kind of response. What I'd say is that, when discussing legal issues, words matter and there may well be reasons why lawyers choose the formulations they do.

I've quoted at length the provisions of the Arbitration Act 1996, which is the only basis under which aspects of this arbitration procedure can end up being litigated in the courts of the land. In the light of that, I find idiotic and comical one poster's assertion yesterday that the discussion on recourse to the courts that had developed throughout the day could be based on "simply bad information". My comments were based on, and quoted freely from, the Act of Parliament that's relevant to the situation, which is as sound a source of information as could be cited.

The Arbitration Act 1996 was conceived and drafted, and now operates, to enshrine the principle that parties who've agreed to arbitrate any dispute that arises between them (as City and the PL in effect have) should receive an outcome determined by that arbitration process. The general legal position is that they shouldn't then get a second chance to go to court, when they've already agreed with one another to exclude that method of resolving disputes. Only in rare and exceptional circumstances does the Act allow a departure from that principle.

This is simply a matter of fact and I disagree that a better way to explain the right to appeal would be to say that there IS a right of appeal in certain, unlikely circumstances. The difference is certainly nuanced but nonetheless IMO significant and the way I've described it deliberately reflects the way that a court would approach the issue. People may want reassurance in this situation but they if they expect me to frame things in a way I'm unhappy with just to make others on this board feel better, then they're going to be disappointed.

Ironically, I started out in the discussion yesterday thinking that I was providing reassurance in that posters were saying that the final PL ruling could blatantly shaft us and we had no chance of an appeal to the courts. I think in certain circumstances we could have, and I hoped that might provide a degree of comfort to posters by saying so. But it's extremely difficult to prevail in those circumstances and I'd be doing no one any favours by failing to stress that.

In addition, I'm cautious because I've been posting on City message boards since discovering the original Blue View back in 1996, half a lifetime ago, and have long since discovered that a small proportion (but a surprisingly large number in absolute terms) of internet users are utter cunts. I've received unwarranted personal abuse in the past when people have claimed that postings crafted in the most optimistic way possible misled them despite my including all necessary caveats. I prefer not to have this happen again if I can avoid it.

Now, as it happens, I'm relatively sanguine about our prospects based solely on the little information that's so far in the public domain. As I've already said more than once, I think that the provisions of the Arbitration Act 1996 do afford us sufficient rights to keep a PL panel relatively honest given that they know that we'll be making every possible use of each opportunity to go to the High Court that any errors or bias on their own part may allow us.

If people want other grounds for optimism, they can find them in the discussions of a need for a particularly "cogent" standard of evidence given the nature of the allegations and of a need for the PL to prove fraud or concealment so that the general limitation period stipulated by the Limitation Act 1980 wouldn't apply. There's been considerable discussion of these points further back in this thread. I appreciate that non-lawyers may not remember the salient reasoning, but the search function should enable anyone who's interested to find the relevant posts.

However, ultimately we know very little about the charges against us. The whole process is so far being conducted in such a way that it's easy for hostile media outlets and venal commercial rivals to smear us without the club being able to defend itself in the court of public opinion or City fans being able to reassure ourselves as to the prospects for the overall proceedings. I don't see we have any real alternative but to suck that up, unfortunately.

 

[ayrshire_blue]

a surprisingly large number in absolute terms) of internet users are utter cunts.

I love how you speak so eloquently but I find myself nodding along to this specific part of your post =)

Your posts are an excellent contribution to this thread, it'd be worse without the information you and a few others are providing on this issue.

 

[SilverFox2]

Obviously, I'm not going to leave this without some kind of response. What I'd say is that, when discussing legal issues, words matter and there may well be reasons why lawyers choose the formulations they do.

I've quoted at length the provisions of the Arbitration Act 1996, which is the only basis under which aspects of this arbitration procedure can end up being litigated in the courts of the land. In the light of that, I find idiotic and comical one poster's assertion yesterday that the discussion on recourse to the courts that had developed throughout the day could be based on "simply bad information". My comments were based on, and quoted freely from, the Act of Parliament that's relevant to the situation, which is as sound a source of information as could be cited.

The Arbitration Act 1996 was conceived and drafted, and now operates, to enshrine the principle that parties who've agreed to arbitrate any dispute that arises between them (as City and the PL in effect have) should receive an outcome determined by that arbitration process. The general legal position is that they shouldn't then get a second chance to go to court, when they've already agreed with one another to exclude that method of resolving disputes. Only in rare and exceptional circumstances does the Act allow a departure from that principle.

This is simply a matter of fact and I disagree that a better way to explain the right to appeal would be to say that there IS a right of appeal in certain, unlikely circumstances. The difference is certainly nuanced but nonetheless IMO significant and the way I've described it deliberately reflects the way that a court would approach the issue. People may want reassurance in this situation but they if they expect me to frame things in a way I'm unhappy with just to make others on this board feel better, then they're going to be disappointed.

Ironically, I started out in the discussion yesterday thinking that I was providing reassurance in that posters were saying that the final PL ruling could blatantly shaft us and we had no chance of an appeal to the courts. I think in certain circumstances we could have, and I hoped that might provide a degree of comfort to posters by saying so. But it's extremely difficult to prevail in those circumstances and I'd be doing no one any favours by failing to stress that.

In addition, I'm cautious because I've been posting on City message boards since discovering the original Blue View back in 1996, half a lifetime ago, and have long since discovered that a small proportion (but a surprisingly large number in absolute terms) of internet users are utter cunts. I've received unwarranted personal abuse in the past when people have claimed that postings crafted in the most optimistic way possible misled them despite my including all necessary caveats. I prefer not to have this happen again if I can avoid it.

Now, as it happens, I'm relatively sanguine about our prospects based solely on the little information that's so far in the public domain. As I've already said more than once, I think that the provisions of the Arbitration Act 1996 do afford us sufficient rights to keep a PL panel relatively honest given that they know that we'll be making every possible use of each opportunity to go to the High Court that any errors or bias on their own part may allow us.

If people want other grounds for optimism, they can find them in the discussions of a need for a particularly "cogent" standard of evidence given the nature of the allegations and of a need for the PL to prove fraud or concealment so that the general limitation period stipulated by the Limitation Act 1980 wouldn't apply. There's been considerable discussion of these points further back in this thread. I appreciate that non-lawyers may not remember the salient reasoning, but the search function should enable anyone who's interested to find the relevant posts.

However, ultimately we know very little about the charges against us. The whole process is so far being conducted in such a way that it's easy for hostile media outlets and venal commercial rivals to smear us without the club being able to defend itself in the court of public opinion or City fans being able to reassure ourselves as to the prospects for the overall proceedings. I don't see we have any real alternative but to suck that up, unfortunately.

Thanks Peter for that great post.

We as mostly non legal people must realize that you are governed by the law and you simply cannot change it no matter how stupid it may appear to us or even you.

You have been successful in explaining the parts that seem tied up in legal mumbo jumbo so it is up to us to thank you not argue about somethings that can appear to be unclear.

Thanks again mate and keep posting.

 

[jaiguruKun]

Obviously, I'm not going to leave this without some kind of response. What I'd say is that, when discussing legal issues, words matter and there may well be reasons why lawyers choose the formulations they do.

I've quoted at length the provisions of the Arbitration Act 1996, which is the only basis under which aspects of this arbitration procedure can end up being litigated in the courts of the land. In the light of that, I find idiotic and comical one poster's assertion yesterday that the discussion on recourse to the courts that had developed throughout the day could be based on "simply bad information". My comments were based on, and quoted freely from, the Act of Parliament that's relevant to the situation, which is as sound a source of information as could be cited.

The Arbitration Act 1996 was conceived and drafted, and now operates, to enshrine the principle that parties who've agreed to arbitrate any dispute that arises between them (as City and the PL in effect have) should receive an outcome determined by that arbitration process. The general legal position is that they shouldn't then get a second chance to go to court, when they've already agreed with one another to exclude that method of resolving disputes. Only in rare and exceptional circumstances does the Act allow a departure from that principle.

This is simply a matter of fact and I disagree that a better way to explain the right to appeal would be to say that there IS a right of appeal in certain, unlikely circumstances. The difference is certainly nuanced but nonetheless IMO significant and the way I've described it deliberately reflects the way that a court would approach the issue. People may want reassurance in this situation but they if they expect me to frame things in a way I'm unhappy with just to make others on this board feel better, then they're going to be disappointed.

Ironically, I started out in the discussion yesterday thinking that I was providing reassurance in that posters were saying that the final PL ruling could blatantly shaft us and we had no chance of an appeal to the courts. I think in certain circumstances we could have, and I hoped that might provide a degree of comfort to posters by saying so. But it's extremely difficult to prevail in those circumstances and I'd be doing no one any favours by failing to stress that.

In addition, I'm cautious because I've been posting on City message boards since discovering the original Blue View back in 1996, half a lifetime ago, and have long since discovered that a small proportion (but a surprisingly large number in absolute terms) of internet users are utter cunts. I've received unwarranted personal abuse in the past when people have claimed that postings crafted in the most optimistic way possible misled them despite my including all necessary caveats. I prefer not to have this happen again if I can avoid it.

Now, as it happens, I'm relatively sanguine about our prospects based solely on the little information that's so far in the public domain. As I've already said more than once, I think that the provisions of the Arbitration Act 1996 do afford us sufficient rights to keep a PL panel relatively honest given that they know that we'll be making every possible use of each opportunity to go to the High Court that any errors or bias on their own part may allow us.

If people want other grounds for optimism, they can find them in the discussions of a need for a particularly "cogent" standard of evidence given the nature of the allegations and of a need for the PL to prove fraud or concealment so that the general limitation period stipulated by the Limitation Act 1980 wouldn't apply. There's been considerable discussion of these points further back in this thread. I appreciate that non-lawyers may not remember the salient reasoning, but the search function should enable anyone who's interested to find the relevant posts.

However, ultimately we know very little about the charges against us. The whole process is so far being conducted in such a way that it's easy for hostile media outlets and venal commercial rivals to smear us without the club being able to defend itself in the court of public opinion or City fans being able to reassure ourselves as to the prospects for the overall proceedings. I don't see we have any real alternative but to suck that up, unfortunately.

Superb post.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

Obviously, I'm not going to leave this without some kind of response. What I'd say is that, when discussing legal issues, words matter and there may well be reasons why lawyers choose the formulations they do.

I've quoted at length the provisions of the Arbitration Act 1996, which is the only basis under which aspects of this arbitration procedure can end up being litigated in the courts of the land. In the light of that, I find idiotic and comical one poster's assertion yesterday that the discussion on recourse to the courts that had developed throughout the day could be based on "simply bad information". My comments were based on, and quoted freely from, the Act of Parliament that's relevant to the situation, which is as sound a source of information as could be cited.

The Arbitration Act 1996 was conceived and drafted, and now operates, to enshrine the principle that parties who've agreed to arbitrate any dispute that arises between them (as City and the PL in effect have) should receive an outcome determined by that arbitration process. The general legal position is that they shouldn't then get a second chance to go to court, when they've already agreed with one another to exclude that method of resolving disputes. Only in rare and exceptional circumstances does the Act allow a departure from that principle.

This is simply a matter of fact and I disagree that a better way to explain the right to appeal would be to say that there IS a right of appeal in certain, unlikely circumstances. The difference is certainly nuanced but nonetheless IMO significant and the way I've described it deliberately reflects the way that a court would approach the issue. People may want reassurance in this situation but they if they expect me to frame things in a way I'm unhappy with just to make others on this board feel better, then they're going to be disappointed.

Ironically, I started out in the discussion yesterday thinking that I was providing reassurance in that posters were saying that the final PL ruling could blatantly shaft us and we had no chance of an appeal to the courts. I think in certain circumstances we could have, and I hoped that might provide a degree of comfort to posters by saying so. But it's extremely difficult to prevail in those circumstances and I'd be doing no one any favours by failing to stress that.

In addition, I'm cautious because I've been posting on City message boards since discovering the original Blue View back in 1996, half a lifetime ago, and have long since discovered that a small proportion (but a surprisingly large number in absolute terms) of internet users are utter cunts. I've received unwarranted personal abuse in the past when people have claimed that postings crafted in the most optimistic way possible misled them despite my including all necessary caveats. I prefer not to have this happen again if I can avoid it.

Now, as it happens, I'm relatively sanguine about our prospects based solely on the little information that's so far in the public domain. As I've already said more than once, I think that the provisions of the Arbitration Act 1996 do afford us sufficient rights to keep a PL panel relatively honest given that they know that we'll be making every possible use of each opportunity to go to the High Court that any errors or bias on their own part may allow us.

If people want other grounds for optimism, they can find them in the discussions of a need for a particularly "cogent" standard of evidence given the nature of the allegations and of a need for the PL to prove fraud or concealment so that the general limitation period stipulated by the Limitation Act 1980 wouldn't apply. There's been considerable discussion of these points further back in this thread. I appreciate that non-lawyers may not remember the salient reasoning, but the search function should enable anyone who's interested to find the relevant posts.

However, ultimately we know very little about the charges against us. The whole process is so far being conducted in such a way that it's easy for hostile media outlets and venal commercial rivals to smear us without the club being able to defend itself in the court of public opinion or City fans being able to reassure ourselves as to the prospects for the overall proceedings. I don't see we have any real alternative but to suck that up, unfortunately.

Objection ;)

 

[halfcenturyup]

Obviously, I'm not going to leave this without some kind of response. What I'd say is that, when discussing legal issues, words matter and there may well be reasons why lawyers choose the formulations they do.

I've quoted at length the provisions of the Arbitration Act 1996, which is the only basis under which aspects of this arbitration procedure can end up being litigated in the courts of the land. In the light of that, I find idiotic and comical one poster's assertion yesterday that the discussion on recourse to the courts that had developed throughout the day could be based on "simply bad information". My comments were based on, and quoted freely from, the Act of Parliament that's relevant to the situation, which is as sound a source of information as could be cited.

The Arbitration Act 1996 was conceived and drafted, and now operates, to enshrine the principle that parties who've agreed to arbitrate any dispute that arises between them (as City and the PL in effect have) should receive an outcome determined by that arbitration process. The general legal position is that they shouldn't then get a second chance to go to court, when they've already agreed with one another to exclude that method of resolving disputes. Only in rare and exceptional circumstances does the Act allow a departure from that principle.

This is simply a matter of fact and I disagree that a better way to explain the right to appeal would be to say that there IS a right of appeal in certain, unlikely circumstances. The difference is certainly nuanced but nonetheless IMO significant and the way I've described it deliberately reflects the way that a court would approach the issue. People may want reassurance in this situation but they if they expect me to frame things in a way I'm unhappy with just to make others on this board feel better, then they're going to be disappointed.

Ironically, I started out in the discussion yesterday thinking that I was providing reassurance in that posters were saying that the final PL ruling could blatantly shaft us and we had no chance of an appeal to the courts. I think in certain circumstances we could have, and I hoped that might provide a degree of comfort to posters by saying so. But it's extremely difficult to prevail in those circumstances and I'd be doing no one any favours by failing to stress that.

In addition, I'm cautious because I've been posting on City message boards since discovering the original Blue View back in 1996, half a lifetime ago, and have long since discovered that a small proportion (but a surprisingly large number in absolute terms) of internet users are utter cunts. I've received unwarranted personal abuse in the past when people have claimed that postings crafted in the most optimistic way possible misled them despite my including all necessary caveats. I prefer not to have this happen again if I can avoid it.

Now, as it happens, I'm relatively sanguine about our prospects based solely on the little information that's so far in the public domain. As I've already said more than once, I think that the provisions of the Arbitration Act 1996 do afford us sufficient rights to keep a PL panel relatively honest given that they know that we'll be making every possible use of each opportunity to go to the High Court that any errors or bias on their own part may allow us.

If people want other grounds for optimism, they can find them in the discussions of a need for a particularly "cogent" standard of evidence given the nature of the allegations and of a need for the PL to prove fraud or concealment so that the general limitation period stipulated by the Limitation Act 1980 wouldn't apply. There's been considerable discussion of these points further back in this thread. I appreciate that non-lawyers may not remember the salient reasoning, but the search function should enable anyone who's interested to find the relevant posts.

However, ultimately we know very little about the charges against us. The whole process is so far being conducted in such a way that it's easy for hostile media outlets and venal commercial rivals to smear us without the club being able to defend itself in the court of public opinion or City fans being able to reassure ourselves as to the prospects for the overall proceedings. I don't see we have any real alternative but to suck that up, unfortunately.

Thanks again for that. I think we are all better informed (maybe I should say we understand the issue more clearly) for your last couple of posts.

Apologies for being an utter ****. :)

 

[Centurions]

UEFA were shot down.
The FA will either be shot down or withdraw their accusations.
Are there any other organisations lurking who might want to have a pop at City?
Anyone who has been behind and encouraged the attempts to ruin our good name should be made to publicly apologise either on t.v. or by a written and signed letter in the press.
Various people in the media should also be brought to book for their part in 'fanning the flames'.
I know none of this will happen of course.

Premiere League...

 

[feelymcfeel]

Apologies for being an utter ****. :)

The first step is recognising it. Now you can try to make changes :)

 

[Dirty Harry]

Obviously, I'm not going to leave this without some kind of response. What I'd say is that, when discussing legal issues, words matter and there may well be reasons why lawyers choose the formulations they do.

I've quoted at length the provisions of the Arbitration Act 1996, which is the only basis under which aspects of this arbitration procedure can end up being litigated in the courts of the land. In the light of that, I find idiotic and comical one poster's assertion yesterday that the discussion on recourse to the courts that had developed throughout the day could be based on "simply bad information". My comments were based on, and quoted freely from, the Act of Parliament that's relevant to the situation, which is as sound a source of information as could be cited.

The Arbitration Act 1996 was conceived and drafted, and now operates, to enshrine the principle that parties who've agreed to arbitrate any dispute that arises between them (as City and the PL in effect have) should receive an outcome determined by that arbitration process. The general legal position is that they shouldn't then get a second chance to go to court, when they've already agreed with one another to exclude that method of resolving disputes. Only in rare and exceptional circumstances does the Act allow a departure from that principle.

This is simply a matter of fact and I disagree that a better way to explain the right to appeal would be to say that there IS a right of appeal in certain, unlikely circumstances. The difference is certainly nuanced but nonetheless IMO significant and the way I've described it deliberately reflects the way that a court would approach the issue. People may want reassurance in this situation but they if they expect me to frame things in a way I'm unhappy with just to make others on this board feel better, then they're going to be disappointed.

Ironically, I started out in the discussion yesterday thinking that I was providing reassurance in that posters were saying that the final PL ruling could blatantly shaft us and we had no chance of an appeal to the courts. I think in certain circumstances we could have, and I hoped that might provide a degree of comfort to posters by saying so. But it's extremely difficult to prevail in those circumstances and I'd be doing no one any favours by failing to stress that.

In addition, I'm cautious because I've been posting on City message boards since discovering the original Blue View back in 1996, half a lifetime ago, and have long since discovered that a small proportion (but a surprisingly large number in absolute terms) of internet users are utter cunts. I've received unwarranted personal abuse in the past when people have claimed that postings crafted in the most optimistic way possible misled them despite my including all necessary caveats. I prefer not to have this happen again if I can avoid it.

Now, as it happens, I'm relatively sanguine about our prospects based solely on the little information that's so far in the public domain. As I've already said more than once, I think that the provisions of the Arbitration Act 1996 do afford us sufficient rights to keep a PL panel relatively honest given that they know that we'll be making every possible use of each opportunity to go to the High Court that any errors or bias on their own part may allow us.

If people want other grounds for optimism, they can find them in the discussions of a need for a particularly "cogent" standard of evidence given the nature of the allegations and of a need for the PL to prove fraud or concealment so that the general limitation period stipulated by the Limitation Act 1980 wouldn't apply. There's been considerable discussion of these points further back in this thread. I appreciate that non-lawyers may not remember the salient reasoning, but the search function should enable anyone who's interested to find the relevant posts.

However, ultimately we know very little about the charges against us. The whole process is so far being conducted in such a way that it's easy for hostile media outlets and venal commercial rivals to smear us without the club being able to defend itself in the court of public opinion or City fans being able to reassure ourselves as to the prospects for the overall proceedings. I don't see we have any real alternative but to suck that up, unfortunately.

For what it’s worth mate, yours and the other ‘legal’ lads who post I just see it as you erring on the side of caution and maybe even helping to manage our expectations from your own knowledge and experience, and it’s really appreciated the lengths you all go to, whether we agree/understand, or not.

 

[wolviedinho]

Thanks again for that. I think we are all better informed (maybe I should say we understand the issue more clearly) for your last couple of posts.

Apologies for being an utter ****. :)

Try being a imperceptible **** instead?

Think that’s allowed on here -:)

 

[halfcenturyup]

Try being a imperceptible **** instead?

Think that’s allowed on here -:)

Well, you should know :)

 

[halfcenturyup]

The first step is recognising it. Now you can try to make changes :)

Naah, I am happy being a ****.

 

[wolviedinho]

For what it’s worth mate, yours and the other ‘legal’ lads who post I just see it as you erring on the side of caution and maybe even helping to manage our expectations from your own knowledge and experience, and it’s really appreciated the lengths you all go to, whether we agree/understand, or not.

Look mate. Tolmie said it was done. Why use many words when one will suffice? -:)

I enjoy the legal wrangling on here, which if dealing with a normal authority would be adhered to but we are dealing with a bunch of g14 scumbags who have in their possession stolen doctored emails. If they choose not to accept city’s published financial accounts or the word of senior management then we can do nothing about it.

Everyone thought they found a smoking gun
with the der spiegal info dump to explain the clubs financial growth but instead they ended up with a black eye.

The red clubs have sabotaged the league to use how they see fit. Which in our case is to stop competition.

The legal team on here have shown us that the process will keep the premier league honest to a certain extent otherwise in that very rare situation we have recourse.

What gets lost in all of this is the negated theory of innocent until proven otherwise.. I believe the club has been creative but stayed within the legal/accounting rules. So even if they managed to twist the narrative the paperwork will still only show a financial transaction from a commercial partner into city. Its fanciful in the extreme to think we have Mansour paying every player/manager/commercial company backhanders to bloat the revenue.

Load of crap. It would take far too much effort and we would have to silence hundreds of people. It can be filed with flat earth people and ufo believers.

Just because the world of football desperately want it to be true does not make it so.

 

[blueballs84]

Problem is they will never stop coming for us.
As a result, we'll always be under more scrutiny then anyone else. It's the exact reason the charged us with everything under the sun. It's the spaghetti on the wall approach. They just want something, anything, to stick, they don't really care what.

The Amerikkkan clubs will never have their finances scrutinized to the same level.