The real life case on which JvJ was based was eventually settled. No heirs received anything, the whole inheritance was expended on ……..oh, lawyers fees.
PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules
- Thread starter ayrshire_blue
- Start date
Burnham is just a symptom of a wider issue with people finding they NEED to talk about things they clearly dont understand and thinking if they say it enough times and shout it loud enough then the faux air of authority that they project is enough for them to speak on subjects they know very little about.
Our charges are rife with this, the amount of people who feel that they must speak about them despite have little to no experience on the subject is ridiculous, i get coming on here and discussing but its wound its way in to the media, podcasts, youtube, absolutely everywhere, i mean this week alone we have had tony bellew (scouse boxer who wasnt to intelligent before a few blows to the head) and burnham (career politician with no real expertise on any matter) speak on it, what on earth do either of those bring to the table apart from noise, what happened to it is better to remain silent and be thought an idiot than open your mouth and remove all doubt.
Our charges are rife with this, the amount of people who feel that they must speak about them despite have little to no experience on the subject is ridiculous, i get coming on here and discussing but its wound its way in to the media, podcasts, youtube, absolutely everywhere, i mean this week alone we have had tony bellew (scouse boxer who wasnt to intelligent before a few blows to the head) and burnham (career politician with no real expertise on any matter) speak on it, what on earth do either of those bring to the table apart from noise, what happened to it is better to remain silent and be thought an idiot than open your mouth and remove all doubt.
G
G
ganganvince
Guest
Which station?
Talkshite
I watched Stefan on YT with Rory Jennings, talking about Chelsea's situation.
The comments were all predictably "what about City" ...but one mentioned the 115 charges, which had me thinking...
our allegations, as we know, are actually 5 breaches but with many incidences under each one... So how many have Chelsea got? Stefan mentions off the book payments and their accounts being wrong - so for how many years? Surely they must be getting up to the hundred mark or more?
eyalluvitt
Well-Known Member
Yeah all unfair and outrageous when it comes to Everton, but saying absolutely nothing about the club that is in Manchester which he is suppose to represent.
Bluesince1979
Well-Known Member
Half way through the ‘unofficial partner’ podcast with nick harris and stefan and got to say its the first time ive been genuinely worried about the outcome.
Colin savage is also quoted as saying “yeah ive heard that some of the monies that was supposed to have come from etihad came from elsewhere”
As keeps being said, would the prem league have brought this case of incredible magnitude on a wim or on the say so of the red shirts?
Colin savage is also quoted as saying “yeah ive heard that some of the monies that was supposed to have come from etihad came from elsewhere”
As keeps being said, would the prem league have brought this case of incredible magnitude on a wim or on the say so of the red shirts?
flb
Well-Known Member
Aren't there two separate issues with Chelsea?
They admitted finding some issues with the accounts, and UEFA fined them. From the coverage, it looks like they weren't anything major.
Shortly after, the payments to agents came out in a leak of bank documents. These are similar to some of the allegations against us, and much more serious, but Chelsea at the time said they didn't know anything about them, and hadn't even seen the documents. The PL said they were investigating, so they're really at the stage we were in 2018, and haven't actually been accused of anything by the PL yet. Not sure about the original stuff they admitted, but it would make sense if it's been folded into the more complicated investigation.
You do see it mentioned occasionally, and most of the big media outlets have done articles, but I guess there in the same limbo we were.
The cynic in me would suggest that until they start winning things, there won't be huge pressure from anyone for quicker action. You certainly won't get another million clicks from Liverpool fans by saying "what about Chelsea?".
flb
Well-Known Member
And so the stupid **** should do, he'd be a fool getting involved in the city debate with our owners pumping astronomical investment into east Manchester, maybe just every now and then pillocks like him should just show a bit of support to the club who reside under Manchester City Council, he doesn't mind throwing his weight around supporting tax dodging scruffy Jims "National stadium of the north" plans does he, that's something Trafford Borough Council should be supporting, he's the bloke who wants to implement clean air driving zone in Manchester, fuck off back to Liverpool you nob rash.
Continuing your Dickensian theme, I raise you Hard Times
"Who can look on’t sir, and fairly tell a man ‘tis not a muddle?"
denislawsbackheel
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 28 May 2008
- Messages
- 27,374
- Team supported
- We went to Rotherham…
Where did Savage hear it, RAWK?
G
G
ganganvince
Guest
One thing on this that I struggle with is as a manager if I was conducting an investigation into allegations made against an employee I would need to demonstrate that I had also checked the practice wasn't widespread or risk losing my case on grounds of discrimination. Would the PL not need to demonstrate due diligence?
wolviedinho
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 23,926
- Location
- Doublethink
- Team supported
- Super City from Maine Road(not wolves)
Maybe Colin was talking about the 3rd party element involved with Ethiad?
On the balance of probability and the fact that we have a clean paper trail that was accepted at CAS I wouldn’t worry. The bit you quoted is not factual but more hearsay. Going into these proceedings the starting point is that the people involved are not deliberately being dishonest.
Facts will prevail, not innuendos and not out of context information not matter how it looks.
Last edited:
I thought it was widely accepted that the Abu Dhabi Executive Council paid some of the Etihad sponsorship. Which wouldn’t break any rules. It would only be a problem if payment came from our owners as disguised equity
Metalartin
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 15 Jul 2015
- Messages
- 12,442
As someone said, it wasn't really in the know City information, just Colin trying to piece things together. That was because of something in the emails about 'H.H securing funding from elsewhere' which was being used as a smoking gun argument.
Someone will be along to clear this up properly no doubt but from memory: I believe there was a belief, based off the open skies court case that involved Etihad, that ADEC(Abu Dhabi Executive Council?) 'likely' paid the money. H.H(His Highness) was said to be a different Royal, who is actually involved with Etihad, at CAS(so Colin was correct about that and it makes much more sense too). So that wouldn't be disguised equity and it wouldn't have involved Sheikh Mansour authorising payments from government funds. However, there may have still been an argument that the accounts weren't showing an accurate reflection of where the money came from, according to some(I seem to remember Der Spiegel made an article exploring that angle of attack).
It was a well reasoned theory and I certainly appreciated reading that take before the CAS hearing. If only to show the know-it-alls, that what was said in the emails could mean any number of things(not just what our rivals wanted it to mean) and only City truly knew the correct context, not Der Spiegel, not UEFA.
However, at CAS, we found out that £8m came from Etihad's marketing budget/fund, the rest came from Etihad's central funds. I believe they even showed accounting data to prove it but I could be mistaken. CAS accepted this explanation either way.
Last edited:
Oh that info was from the hacked emails and was one email we know one email can be taken out of context! It will be in the accounts either way!Khaldoon did say we have irrefutable evidence!
adjective. Irrefutable evidence, statements, or arguments cannot be shown to be incorrect or unsatisfactory
Centurions
Well-Known Member
Are we talking about Colin Savage aka Prestwichblue or a different Colin Savage?