PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

halfcenturyup said:
The thing is: it's like having a discussion on Talksport. Anything the club says will be misrepresented, talked over, talked down. So what does the club do then? Issue another statement to clarify the misrepresentation? It would be never ending and give the press/ social media exactly what they want.

The sort of people who are getting their knickers in a twist from press/ social media now will be getting their knickers twisted even more by the misrepresentations after a brief sigh of relief following a statement from the club.

It's much, much better for everyone if the club says nothing, imho.
Click to expand...
Well iv heard Stefan borsan on talksport defending City, putting another side. I think that's helped change the mood towards City, after years of one way shite we've got someone who puts the other side. I wonder what would happen if the club did the same. Not that it matters I trust the club more than my judgement.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
I think why the club’s silence has come into my mind now, when it didn’t really occupy my thoughts a week or so ago, is that the sands appear to be shifting quite quickly with regards to PL financial rules - and now seems to me to be an apposite time for the club to try and take some initiative, assuming they are supremely confident of the ground they are standing on, which I believe is the case.

Rightly or wrongly, I feel now is the time for the club to be more on the front foot with this than hitherto, as the whole thing is descending into a farce from which City could accrue some advantage, that possibly wasn’t available a month or so ago.

Has any other club been charged today btw?
Click to expand...
City have absolutely nothing to gain by issuing any interim statements- in fact, quite the opposite.

We made our statement at the outset. Nothing more need be said until a judgment has been handed down. Then we’ll speak.

If a defendant believes he / she has a rock-solid case, then an opening, “hard”rebuttal is all that is required.

Simply reiterating that rebuttal just smacks of being desperate to be believed.

If Pannick thought it were a good idea, we’d have heard something.
 
Gorton_Tubster said:
Well iv heard Stefan borsan on talksport defending City, putting another side. I think that's helped change the mood towards City, after years of one way shite we've got someone who puts the other side. I wonder what would happen if the club did the same. Not that it matters I trust the club more than my judgement.
Click to expand...
Helped change the mood ?? Hardly.

Whilst it’s great Stefan fighting our corner - virtually every show repeats the usual ‘warrabout City’ crap.
 
johnnytapia said:
City have absolutely nothing to gain by issuing any interim statements- in fact, quite the opposite.

We made our statement at the outset. Nothing more need be said until a judgment has been handed down. Then we’ll speak.

If a defendant believes he / she has a rock-solid case, then an opening, “hard”rebuttal is all that is required.

Simply reiterating that rebuttal just smacks of being desperate to be believed.

If Pannick thought it were a good idea, we’d have heard something.
Click to expand...
If nothing had materially changed then I’d be inclined to agree, but the sands are plainly shifting. It therefore wouldn’t be a reiteration of the initial rebuttal; it would need to be more nuanced than that to have the desired effect.

I think the club does have something to gain by taking advantage of the current chaos.

It would also make us better placed to seize the narrative assuming these charges are dismissed, as we will have foreshadowed that outcome during, not at the outset of the process.

Comparing our case with that of a defendant in a trial is incongruous and simplistic. There are wider considerations than the mere determination of these charges.
 
Metal Biker said:
Cool.

Not going to make me want to stop supporting the club though. I don't care how the Premier League might interpret the "severity of our crimes", in my view it's an absolute bullshit notion. An investor who cannot use their own legal capital to invest in their own business because other failing businesses aren't in the same financially secure position, is not a 'crime' that I take to be one i'd be disgusted by. Do you honestly think that Shiekh Mansour and his team intentionally committed fraud?

Theft, spending despite being in debt, spending whilst using the club as collateral, bribery, blackmail and threats would be something i'd be ashamed of our owner for. But he ain't done that, has he?
Click to expand...
I don’t believe we did anything wrong but that does not change the consequences if we are found to have nor what is alleged to have happened. You keep saying it’s all about spending but it’s not
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
If nothing had materially changed then I’d be inclined to agree, but the sands are plainly shifting. It therefore wouldn’t be a reiteration of the initial rebuttal; it would need to be more nuanced than that to have the desired effect.

I think the club does have something to gain by taking advantage of the current chaos.

It would also make us better placed to seize the narrative assuming these charges are dismissed, as we will have foreshadowed that outcome during, not at the outset of the process.

Comparing our case with that of a defendant in a trial is incongruous and simplistic. There are wider considerations than the mere determination of these charges.
Click to expand...
Are we not a defendant in a trial?
 
WRicko said:
I don’t believe we did anything wrong but that does not change the consequences if we are found to have nor what is alleged to have happened. You keep saying it’s all about spending but it’s not
Click to expand...
That's not what i'm saying though. You have completely missed the point i'm making.

My point is that our detractors are expecting me to say that if City are found guilty of this "fraud" charge, I should be ashamed of the club, and I simply won't be. That's the end of the matter, I won't be responding again if you cannot grasp that.
 
johnnytapia said:
Are we not a defendant in a trial?
Click to expand...
Strictly speaking, no, as it won’t be a trial, and I expect we’ll be named as the respondent not the defendant, but such technicalities weren’t my point.

My point, is that if the club is certain of our innocence then there are wider considerations than a binary outcome for it to weigh into the balance, and as such they have much to gain from an effectively worded statement at this juncture.
 
manimanc said:
Just to butt in, if indeed it is fraud of an industrial scale which we are being accused of then it has nothing to do with the Premier League, it's over to the relevant authorities.
Click to expand...
Just going to say this^^^^^

Go to the law if we have indeed fiddled the accounts.

Come on bastions of truth or bastards of truth. Get the case in a proper court of law!

Nope? Wonder why?
 
Gorton_Tubster said:
Well iv heard Stefan borsan on talksport defending City, putting another side. I think that's helped change the mood towards City, after years of one way shite we've got someone who puts the other side. I wonder what would happen if the club did the same. Not that it matters I trust the club more than my judgement.
Click to expand...
And the next time Jordan is on his stupid show, it's time-barred, delaying tactics, what do they have to hide, srate-owned, false sponsorships and all the rest. Nothing changes.

Also, you can't use nuance on the Talksport listener or red tops reader. You need a sledgehammer to shut them up.
 
Last edited:
gordondaviesmoustache said:
If nothing had materially changed then I’d be inclined to agree, but the sands are plainly shifting. It therefore wouldn’t be a reiteration of the initial rebuttal; it would need to be more nuanced than that to have the desired effect.

I think the club does have something to gain by taking advantage of the current chaos.

It would also make us better placed to seize the narrative assuming these charges are dismissed, as we will have foreshadowed that outcome during, not at the outset of the process.

Comparing our case with that of a defendant in a trial is incongruous and simplistic. There are wider considerations than the mere determination of these charges.
Click to expand...
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Strictly speaking, no, as it won’t be a trial, and I expect we’ll be named as the respondent, but such technicalities wasn’t my point.

My point, is that if the club is certain of our innocence then there are wider considerations than a binary outcome for it to weigh into the balance.
Click to expand...
I disagree but let’s put that aside.
If City were to issue a statement what would it look like and how would you envisage that playing in our favour?
 
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