PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Alan Harper's Tash said:
When you feel jaded around all this nonsense, just remember that the announcement of these charges spurred us on to winning the treble.

Wonder what the PL will throw at us in February next year to help us on our way.
Click to expand...
Maybe they’ll try reverse psychology by finding us not guilty and hoping it deflates us!!
 
Alan Harper's Tash said:
When you feel jaded around all this nonsense, just remember that the announcement of these charges spurred us on to winning the treble.

Wonder what the PL will throw at us in February next year to help us on our way.
Click to expand...
100% this ^

It was the greatest inspiration possible at the best possible time, we looked a tired, old team last autumn, these charges were the perfect "pep" up and ended in a glorious treble.

Without doubt the finest own goal from the red shirts in living memory.
 
citizen_maine said:
When did this happen
Click to expand...
UEFA Case: One of the charges was for non cooperation. City had refused to cooperate with the UEFA Investigative Chamber led by Yves Leterme, former disgraced Belgian PM. Leterme was accused by City of leaking information from the confidential investigation. When found guilty by UEFA they appealed to CAS. They then appealed to CAS claiming that because UEFA had broken their protocol, the case against them should be terminated. CAS however, although accepting the reasons, couldn't terminate the UEFA case / City appeal as it hadn't been heard. When it was heard, CAS reduced the fine for non-cooperation from e30M to e10M as they agreed with City but, due to City having admitted non-cooperation couldn't reject the charge The amount of the fine was noted as being due to City's considerable resources.

City have done a similar process with the PL financial investigation, see above for details

Incidentally Leterme was the gentleman who forgot to charge PSG in time and therefore their breaches went unpunished Following the CAS case verdict Leterme left UEFA
 
Centurions said:
Correct except that I think the judge was a 'she'.

I don't get this non-cooperation nonsense as we disagreed with what they were asking for and took it to court. We then do cooperate when the judge says we are wrong (to what degree, we'll never know) and they then find us guilty of non-cooperation and fine us. Isn't that using coercion to force us to not take it to court in the first place?
Click to expand...
If you are referring to the PL case against City then no fine has been levied
With the UEFA case they fined us e30M reduced on appeal by CAS to e10M, we had admitted our non-cooperation when we submitted a prior appeal to CAS to have the case thrown-out due to the leaks citing them as the reason our non-cooperation
 
Bald fraud said:
King Charles opening parliament today. One of the subjects is bringing in an independent football regulator. Looks like the sheikh has had word ;)
Click to expand...
I do hope he has had a word.
Get all the big boys involved.
The hateful 8 think the pen is mightier than the sword, but Sheikh Mansour knows better.
Slay the fuckers : )
 
Centurions said:
I don't get this non-cooperation nonsense as we disagreed with what they were asking for and took it to court. We then do cooperate when the judge says we are wrong (to what degree, we'll never know) and they then find us guilty of non-cooperation and fine us. Isn't that using coercion to force us to not take it to court in the first place?
Click to expand...
The rules of the competition implore clubs to assist in any investigation that the league may engage in.

City are entitled to take a strategic decision that it’s better to refuse and take a fine than to assist a fishing expedition.

Ultimately though, the non-cooperation charges are likely to be slam-dunks as they are not subjective charges.

If City end up ‘only’ being guilty of non-cooperation, the board will be smoking cigars thicker than a Grealish calf….
 
Am i wrong in thinking that in this case the none co-operation issue for the documents or infoyrmation requested by the PL was put before the court and following their decision, complied with the requirements?
How us that non-co-operation?
 
Kinkys Left Foot said:
Am i wrong in thinking that in this case the none co-operation issue for the documents or infoyrmation requested by the PL was put before the court and following their decision, complied with the requirements?
How us that non-co-operation?
Click to expand...
I would guess that if the PL had requested we open our books for everyone to see in the last few years (ie before the accusations) that we would say no. Only guessing though.
 
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