PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Much like netspend spend comparisons ceased to be a talking point, as soon as it became clear it was making United look bad. I do feel it's worth pointing out, that the catchphrase 'whataboutery' seems to be a far less popular word recently.

We should be reminding every journo and pundit, who routinely used it as a free pass for their double standards, when it suited them.
 
dadnlad said:
the media are reveling in this pitching everton against forest and forest against everton then getting advisors to wind up more the "what about city " pile on
Click to expand...
Virtually no criticism of the PL hierarchy from the football media but more from general news reporters and those with good political contacts who know what has been going behind closed doors at the PL. Football reporters have a much too cosy relationship with officials at the Cartel clubs and people like Richard Masters. The reason for this is that these people are the source for the private media briefings.
 
Metalartin said:
There was never really a big 5 in the 80s though IMO. From what I can deduce, that was a PR campaign bought and paid for by those very clubs. The original plan set in the late 80s, was obviously to create are legitimate big 5 in the PL era. Then it quickly became a big 3, when it eventually arrived. Spurs were a mid table club at best for the first decade and half of the PL era. Everton faired slightly better without really challenging much(how many title challenges, how many trophies in the PL era?).

It was a big two at best going into the PL era, Liverpool for the success(miles clear of everyone in major honours with 32 by the end of the 80s), United(15 m-h) for their attendances(have to give them that unfortunately).

Arsenal(16 m-h), Everton(14 m-h) and Spurs(14 m-h) had no legitimate claims to put themselves above the other traditional top clubs of old english football. There were too many clubs, too close to them to claim they were bigger. Wasn't there only 1 televised game a week for most of that era(Liverpool taking most of the limelight)?
Click to expand...
The big five at that time were in place due to the carve up of TV rights that were a result of a deal they did with ITV

they agreed a deal where their games would be the primary focus of the weekly matches that were shown on a Sunday afternoon

therfore securing the vast majority of TV money for themselves

they then went behind ITV’s back to do a deal with SKY
 
Last edited:
dadnlad said:
stefan said it's to far down the line for this to happen
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t be too sure. If we follow the process to conclusion he is most probably right with his assessment and due to his legal background, it would be hard to argue against. This is the premier league we are taking about however, a dishonest agent targeting a club at the behest of others.

Moral thinking and decency will go out the window. A shady deal would be more to their standards. Would City go along with it? Don’t know.
 
My WhatsApp group has lit up because of this Forest news, could any of you more intelligent people refute this?

The reason a lot of people think they are guilty is there were leaked documents which UEFA were given which showed there was false accounting (and I think City maybe even admitted to it?). But under UEFA's rules too much time had passed to charge them, whereas the Premier League doesn't have a time limit in its rules.
 
Jim Shite just came out with 'Manchester City, 115 charges kicked into the long grass', that's what we're up against folks. Just doing the bidding of the vested interests.
 
Inter Me Nan said:
My WhatsApp group has lit up because of this Forest news, could any of you more intelligent people refute this?

The reason a lot of people think they are guilty is there were leaked documents which UEFA were given which showed there was false accounting (and I think City maybe even admitted to it?). But under UEFA's rules too much time had passed to charge them, whereas the Premier League doesn't have a time limit in its rules.
Click to expand...
Not more intelligent, but I’d still say that sounds like utter horseshit.
 
tweety said:
Jim Shite just came out with 'Manchester City, 115 charges kicked into the long grass', that's what we're up against folks. Just doing the bidding of the vested interests.
Click to expand...
It gets the great unwashed frothing and dialling in. Nothing more, nothing less.

He doesn't care whether City are guilty or innocent.

He doesn't care if what he is saying is incorrect.

All that matters is that people dial in, in their droves.

And he sits there chuckling to himself.
 
Charlesfarsbar said:
The big five at that time were in place due to the carve up of TV rights that were a result of a deal they did with ITV

they agreed a deal where their matches would be the primary focus of the weekly matches that were shown on a Sunday afternoon

therfore securing the vast majority of TV money for themselves

they then went behind ITV’s back to do a deal with SKY
Click to expand...
Alan Sugar led it.

BSB was his company at the time.
 
Inter Me Nan said:
My WhatsApp group has lit up because of this Forest news, could any of you more intelligent people refute this?

The reason a lot of people think they are guilty is there were leaked documents which UEFA were given which showed there was false accounting (and I think City maybe even admitted to it?). But under UEFA's rules too much time had passed to charge them, whereas the Premier League doesn't have a time limit in its rules.
Click to expand...
City did not deny the emails existed but not in the context that they were reported.

Once city showed CAS through the accounts and actual in person statements that what was stated by Pearce did not actually happen and that the sponsorships(ethiad) paid the full amount to City via a 3rd party, why this was done is not 100 clear unless you are an accountant, and that City’s performance on the pitch satisfied their contractual obligations to said sponsor.

All of city’s accounts are published and free to view. Nothing is hidden.

The time barred is a red hearing. City had the evidence ready to produce at CAS but CAS deemed it not necessary. The premier league have a 6 year period of statute of limitation in uk law. It takes effect once the discovery is made so we ain’t sure when that will kick in. Most probably around the der spiegal leaks.

I’m sure if any of this is wrong, someone will be along to correct it. I assume you mean the emails when you talk about leaked documents.

Just tell them to fuck off!

Actually tell them…god wills it along with the gif -:)
 
Last edited:
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