PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

ancoats said:
The simple answer to the Question is, Would Salah/Liverpool, Rashford/United, Saka/Arsenal get the pen, Fucking right they would, ( It's Modern Day Football ) The Wolves player was late and put Gvardiol in danger of a injury

Why they are all moaning is, that Nobody Wants City to win the title for the 4th time in a row
Check Out Arsenal Pen from Yesterday, That is cheating and diving ?
Click to expand...
Yup, a dive.
 
ancoats said:
The simple answer to the Question is, Would Salah/Liverpool, Rashford/United, Saka/Arsenal get the pen, Fucking right they would, ( It's Modern Day Football ) The Wolves player was late and put Gvardiol in danger of a injury

Why they are all moaning is, that Nobody Wants City to win the title for the 4th time in a row
Check Out Arsenal Pen from Yesterday, That is cheating and diving ?
Click to expand...
Quite.
Though I thought the Wolves player slightly deflected the ball just before taking Josko out - in which case it probably is a pen under the current rules under the "dangerous play" rule as he cleaned the player out while making the challenge.

thepfsa.co.uk

Football Penalties and Shootouts – Rules, Reasons and Records

A penalty kick is a specific type of free kick in football, taken from the penalty spot. Learn the rules and reasons they are awarded here.
thepfsa.co.uk thepfsa.co.uk
 
Silva Citizen said:
Just watched it again to make sure… Guardiol had hit the ball before contact was made. The defender had eyes on the ball and was entitled to challenge for it. In my opinion it was nothing more than a playing incident by old rules. Seriously do not think that would have been considered for a penalty 25 years ago and maybe more recently than that.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, i can see your reasoning. However, you look at the incident predominantly from a defenders point of view.
Every footballer has a right to challenge for a ball, but whether they can without contravening the laws of the game is the issue.
The defender was,caught out of position because his team was caught out of position. The defender has the legal challenge right to block the shot, but that's not what he did.
Due to his bad positioning and accurate play from City (which by the way is what goals are mostly built upon) he lunged into the attacker, missed the ball took out the player and that constitutes a penalty kick.
I would even go so far as to say it was an out of control challenge that endangered the opposing player.
Apart from the dangerous challenge the exact same scenario happens for the 2nd penalty, and everyone agrees that's a stonewall.
That's how I see it.
 
burning blue soul said:
Fair enough, i can see your reasoning. However, you look at the incident predominantly from a defenders point of view.
Every footballer has a right to challenge for a ball, but whether they can without contravening the laws of the game is the issue.
The defender was,caught out of position because his team was caught out of position. The defender has the legal challenge right to block the shot, but that's not what he did.
Due to his bad positioning and accurate play from City (which by the way is what goals are mostly built upon) he lunged into the attacker, missed the ball took out the player and that constitutes a penalty kick.
I would even go so far as to say it was an out of control challenge that endangered the opposing player.
Apart from the dangerous challenge the exact same scenario happens for the 2nd penalty, and everyone agrees that's a stonewall.
That's how I see it.
Click to expand...
For the second, Haaland has control of the ball and was denied a goalscoring opportunity. That wasn't the case for the first.
 
Bluewonder said:
For the second, Haaland has control of the ball and was denied a goalscoring opportunity. That wasn't the case for the first.
Click to expand...
Listen to what you are saying. It makes no sense.
The ball had been passed to City players for them to make an attempt at goal, they were stopped from taking the shot because of unlawful challenges.
It's the same, exactly the same.
You saying that because Gvardiol hadn't put the ball under his control the defender has the right to take him out?
 
Am I right in thinking that City would have had to prepare 115 written defence statements? Could it be that they’ve completed that process, submitted them to the PL’s lawyers and they’ve now reviewed them to decide whether they would be likely to succeed if it went to the full inquiry?
 
Does anyone think the PL will still go ahead with the case if the rumours are true just to save some face and to give the impression the PL tried to charge City with the 115 allegations rather than just giving up and trying to agree a deal with City in private? UEFA tried again and lost at CAS. There are numerous instances of this happening with the Police, the CPS, newspapers and other organisations that knew they were wrong and wouldn’t win the case, but they still went ahead with the case and lost.
 
Last edited:
Similarly, contrary to the Anti City loonies on the Web, time baring certainly exists in UK civil litigation.
lexlaw.co.uk

Limitation Periods | LEXLAW Solicitors & Barristers

City of London Litigation Lawyers. Legal advice on professional negligence, insolvency, breach of contract, HMRC tax disputes, debt recovery. Call 02071830529.
lexlaw.co.uk lexlaw.co.uk
And unless the PL could find us guilty of a criminal act (i.e. false accounting) everything before 2016ish goes away. (It depends when the PL investigation started it could be later than that).
Probably, the worst case for many of the older charges is we could be found guilty of the offence but not punished because of the time bar. But I hold that many of the older charges were there to put us in a bad light as a perennial lieing and cheating organisation.
 
BlueAnorak said:
Similarly, contrary to the Anti City loonies on the Web, time baring certainly exists in UK civil litigation.
lexlaw.co.uk

Limitation Periods | LEXLAW Solicitors & Barristers

City of London Litigation Lawyers. Legal advice on professional negligence, insolvency, breach of contract, HMRC tax disputes, debt recovery. Call 02071830529.
lexlaw.co.uk lexlaw.co.uk
And unless the PL could find us guilty of a criminal act (i.e. false accounting) everything before 2016ish goes away. (It depends when the PL investigation started it could be later than that).
Probably, the worst case for many of the older charges is we could be found guilty of the offence but not punished because of the time bar. But I hold that many of the older charges were there to put us in a bad light as a perennial lieing and cheating organisation.
Click to expand...
There is no time bar
 
jrb said:
Does anyone think the PL will still go ahead with the case if the rumours are true just to save some face and to give the impression the PL tried to charge City with the 115 allegations, rather than just giving up and trying to agree a deal with City in private? UEFA tried again and lost at CAS. There are numerous instances of this happening with the Police, the CPS, newspapers and other organisations that knew they were wrong and wouldn’t win the case, but they still went ahead with the case and lost.
Click to expand...
100%, it would look even worse for the league if they withdrew the charges now, a PR disaster.
 
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