PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Claytop said:
Pretty crazy when you think about the potential ramifications, that one day the hearing decision will just be announced.

Again, assuming we don’t get the usual leaks beforehand.
Click to expand...
Presumably the club will get advance notice of the decision as they did with CAS? If that is the case, we might suss out from the body language of Pep, etc, as to how it’s gone. With CAS he was bullish in the days leading up to the decision being announced.
 
M18CTID said:
Presumably the club will get advance notice of the decision as they did with CAS? If that is the case, we might suss out from the body language of Pep, etc, as to how it’s gone. With CAS he was bullish in the days leading up to the decision being announced.
Click to expand...
You’d think so but I wouldn’t bank on it
 
projectriver said:
We didn't pick 2 from 3. We suggested the chair from the list. UEFA had no objection IF the CAS Court Office went with him. The CAS Court Office then picked him. At no point did City have any power to pick or select the Chair.
Click to expand...
Although it may seem like a fine - somewhat technical - point, it is actually a very important distinction for blues to understand. City merely indicated that an individual would not be objectionable, should he be selected by the Court.
 
M18CTID said:
Presumably the club will get advance notice of the decision as they did with CAS? If that is the case, we might suss out from the body language of Pep, etc, as to how it’s gone. With CAS he was bullish in the days leading up to the decision being announced.
Click to expand...
I wonder if this matter will ever get as far as a formal panel, I personally doubt it. Despite the smears and media bullshit in the background, the PL must know it has no realistic chance of success and will find a way out.
 
M18CTID said:
Presumably the club will get advance notice of the decision as they did with CAS? If that is the case, we might suss out from the body language of Pep, etc, as to how it’s gone. With CAS he was bullish in the days leading up to the decision being announced.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure that it was said during that time that the club only knew 10 minutes or something in advance.
 
projectriver said:
Wrote something on Substack for anyone interested in the topic.
stefanborson.substack.com

Conspiracy Theories and Innuendo will not prove the alleged Manchester City Conspiracy

There will be no Super Sub for cogent evidence
stefanborson.substack.com stefanborson.substack.com
Click to expand...
Excellent piece

And as the article explains, are the PL aware that they are effectively trying to imply (as the cartel are pushing, and the fucking moronic fans of the red tops do) that high executives of multi-national companies have effectively done a mass cover up and lied to independent auditors such as deloitte for over 10yrs!!
 
Even if there's technically no appeal under the PL rules, would any "guilty" verdict be actionable as defamatory (by the club or individuals)?
 
All these high end companies sponsoring us which the Premier League are accusing of fiddling the payments surely have to hit back and sue the Premier League for defamation of character.
 
west didsblue said:
It will be very interesting if those who funded the YT video became known. It's obviously on YT rather than on TV because if it was on TV they would presumably have to disclose more information about who commissioned it. It's quite slick presentation so it obviously wasn't done on the cheap by amateurs. The fact that they are hiding its backers is a strong suggestion that it is part of the ongoing campaign against us, with the latest part of it seeking to delegitimise the findings of CAS. I would be very surprised if the video's funders are not connected to at least one of the red clubs. I think the aims are to keep the finger of suspicion pointing at us even if the 115 charges are dismissed. If/when that happens there will probably be another YT video from a similar source to explain why we're really guilty and why we only got off on a technicality. Sadly there will be no end to the accusations whatever happens.
Click to expand...

It’s on YT because anyone can put anything and any old shite up there. It’s a lot more complex to get a TV program commissioned. I know it may seem like there’s a lot of utter shite on TV too but it’s somewhat more regulated for quality - from what cameras are used to the reason for the commission.

YT is easy. Anybody can upload a ‘documentary’ there.
 
Ted_Bovis said:
It’s on YT because anyone can put anything and any old shite up there. It’s a lot more complex to get a TV program commissioned. I know it may seem like there’s a lot of utter shite on TV too but it’s somewhat more regulated for quality - from what cameras are used to the reason for the commission.

YT is easy. Anybody can upload a ‘documentary’ there.
Click to expand...
Exactly my point
 
wolviedinho said:


Well said, thanks for taking the time to put that all together and explain the situation. Can you make a YouTube video? -:)
Click to expand...


I could - I have lots of pro filming gear and I’m a fully trained video editor and ex-tv producer if Stefan was up for it I’d be happy to figure out how- but it will probably just make us look like we are nervous.

Silence and dignity way more powerful.
 
Gorton_Tubster said:
Yeah I am getting the feeling of so fkin what! They're going to throw this shit as long as we're too good for them. Lets hope for a fine, that will boil their heads so much.
Click to expand...
If City are not guilty (as I believe) why should we accept a fine?
City should be suing for reputational damage if anything.
 
Ted_Bovis said:
I could - I have lots of pro filming gear and I’m a fully trained video editor and ex-tv producer if Stefan was up for it I’d be happy to figure out how- but it will probably just make us look like we are nervous.

Silence and dignity way more powerful.
Click to expand...
We need as many voices on the socials as possible imo. City fans are outnumbered and drowned out by united, arsenal, Liverpool fans.

If anyone can get a YouTube channel going to fight back against the onslaught then they should try it. The more professional the better. Look how much traction that piers Morgan YouTube thing got.

few on here have mentioned doing it. We have enough legal, financial, and media minds to make a real go. Need @tolmie's hairdoo to help out with that probably.

Bluemoon members subscribe and follow then it will make waves. City Avengers Mobilise -:)

Only my opinion mind.
 
Last edited:
Ted_Bovis said:
It’s on YT because anyone can put anything and any old shite up there. It’s a lot more complex to get a TV program commissioned. I know it may seem like there’s a lot of utter shite on TV too but it’s somewhat more regulated for quality - from what cameras are used to the reason for the commission.

YT is easy. Anybody can upload a ‘documentary’ there.
Click to expand...

Possibly touted to TV & they’ve all said “not a fucking chance.”
 
The YouTube documentary got a mention on ESPNFC by Gab Marcotti.
He wasn’t particularly interested in the “new” allegations but was more focused on who paid to make the documentary which was refreshing.

I’m paraphrasing but he basically said who hates Manchester City enough to fund this film…

I think we’d all like to know that
 
projectriver said:
We didn't pick 2 from 3. We suggested the chair from the list. UEFA had no objection IF the CAS Court Office went with him. The CAS Court Office then picked him. At no point did City have any power to pick or select the Chair.
Click to expand...

Ah yes, but UEFA had no objection because they were in on it for commercial reasons. It's easy, this conspiracy nonsense. You really can't win when people conflate fact and fiction.
 
Cobwebcat said:
That’s what I thought.

Great article btw. I hope it gains a wider audience than just City fans.

Question: With regard to the emails. How did City explain to CAS the one that seemed to suggest that that a portion of a sponsor’s money came from ADUG? If I’ve remembered that correctly. It’s the one piece of “evidence” that I thought would be difficult to explain. Time barred?
Click to expand...

These were the facts according to CAS:

Etisalat 1.jpg
And this was the club's submissions:
Etisalat 2.jpg
UEFA's submission was basically, yeah but it looks a bit fishy (my non-legal assessment).

CAS didn't comment on the merits (time-barred), but did hear evidence from the contract lawyer and a SVP of Etisalat:Etisalat 3.jpg
 
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