The media narrative is changing with even a hint of blaming the PL for the mess, you can see the ground is being prepared for a way out but from what I have been told the only way out for City is complete exoneration no settlement that implies any kind of guilt, I believe this is where the impasse is, they should have believed Khaldoon when he said the club would not take anymore pinches.
I can also see the PL's side in this, this whole charade was rushed through (and we do suspect who rushed it) it was broken down into the 115 narrative in order to do the maximum dame to the club, but now it's damaging the PL, the only way out is a full tribunal hearing that City will win, and the lack of evidence will be embarrassing, how do they get out of this hole? For a start the media lackies are stopping digging them deeper watch this space
Al-Mubarak, managing director Ferran Soriano, and Begiristain have assured Guardiola that City will be cleared when Premier League charges against the club over alleged breaches of financial regulations are heard later this year, reportedly in October.
hmm :-)
They could introduce extra points for 'history'. Although that wouldn't help Spurs as the last time they won the title, I was in short pants.The rules they have in place still aren't getting the required results for the red cartel clubs. I think we may see new ones soon.
They changed the rules it's quite simple really, the club say they complied with the rules as they stood, and you can not retrogressively charge people for breaking a rule or law that did not exist at the time“I have never seen a bunch of people more confident that they have nothing to answer for than Manchester City,” one former Premier League chief executive tells The Athletic.
“Their argument is that there are things they have done that would be wrong under the present rules,” adds the former chief executive. “But under the rules at the time and the way they submitted the information, they believe, was all above board”.
“They may get sanctioned because they didn’t account for something properly, but they are confident that when it comes to the big things, which they feel would be wrong in today’s market but fine under a different set of rules as they were back then, they won’t get sanctioned.”
“There are probably four outcomes; they’re acquitted, there’s a huge fine and small points deduction, there’s a huge points deduction or they’re kicked out of the league. But we just don’t know without seeing the in-depth evidence. And just because someone has been charged 115 times, it doesn’t mean they’re guilty.”
Interesting article in the Athletic (behind paywall). Does anyone have clues about what it means by present rules or a different set of rules in bold?
Typical City.We all remember when we were shit and a good season was avoiding relegation and getting a result against the rags or even scoring a goal at home.
Now we are the best team on the planet setting new records no one before us has ever achieved and the icing on the cake will be for City to be found not guilty of any allegations by the Premier League and for Khaldoon to destroy the bastards that have tried to destroy us.
I can’t believe we are so fucking good when not so long ago we were so fucking shit.
Associated sponsors?“I have never seen a bunch of people more confident that they have nothing to answer for than Manchester City,” one former Premier League chief executive tells The Athletic.
“Their argument is that there are things they have done that would be wrong under the present rules,” adds the former chief executive. “But under the rules at the time and the way they submitted the information, they believe, was all above board”.
“They may get sanctioned because they didn’t account for something properly, but they are confident that when it comes to the big things, which they feel would be wrong in today’s market but fine under a different set of rules as they were back then, they won’t get sanctioned.”
“There are probably four outcomes; they’re acquitted, there’s a huge fine and small points deduction, there’s a huge points deduction or they’re kicked out of the league. But we just don’t know without seeing the in-depth evidence. And just because someone has been charged 115 times, it doesn’t mean they’re guilty.”
Interesting article in the Athletic (behind paywall). Does anyone have clues about what it means by present rules or a different set of rules in bold?
Curious to know which set of rules they changed to hamstrung us.They changed the rules it's quite simple really, the club say they complied with the rules as they stood, and you can not retrogressively charge people for breaking a rule or law that did not exist at the time
Exactly - it's like changing the speed limit on a road to 20mph, then fining people for driving above that limit 10yrs ago!They changed the rules it's quite simple really, the club say they complied with the rules as they stood, and you can not retrogressively charge people for breaking a rule or law that did not exist at the time
This is interesting although it did make me laugh the quote about potential outcomes - which basically covers every possibility !“I have never seen a bunch of people more confident that they have nothing to answer for than Manchester City,” one former Premier League chief executive tells The Athletic.
“Their argument is that there are things they have done that would be wrong under the present rules,” adds the former chief executive. “But under the rules at the time and the way they submitted the information, they believe, was all above board”.
“They may get sanctioned because they didn’t account for something properly, but they are confident that when it comes to the big things, which they feel would be wrong in today’s market but fine under a different set of rules as they were back then, they won’t get sanctioned.”
“There are probably four outcomes; they’re acquitted, there’s a huge fine and small points deduction, there’s a huge points deduction or they’re kicked out of the league. But we just don’t know without seeing the in-depth evidence. And just because someone has been charged 115 times, it doesn’t mean they’re guilty.”
Interesting article in the Athletic (behind paywall). Does anyone have clues about what it means by present rules or a different set of rules in bold?
“I have never seen a bunch of people more confident that they have nothing to answer for than Manchester City,” one former Premier League chief executive tells The Athletic.
“Their argument is that there are things they have done that would be wrong under the present rules,” adds the former chief executive. “But under the rules at the time and the way they submitted the information, they believe, was all above board”.
“They may get sanctioned because they didn’t account for something properly, but they are confident that when it comes to the big things, which they feel would be wrong in today’s market but fine under a different set of rules as they were back then, they won’t get sanctioned.”
“There are probably four outcomes; they’re acquitted, there’s a huge fine and small points deduction, there’s a huge points deduction or they’re kicked out of the league. But we just don’t know without seeing the in-depth evidence. And just because someone has been charged 115 times, it doesn’t mean they’re guilty.”
Interesting article in the Athletic (behind paywall). Does anyone have clues about what it means by present rules or a different set of rules in bold?
To be frank, I think this is missing the point.“I have never seen a bunch of people more confident that they have nothing to answer for than Manchester City,” one former Premier League chief executive tells The Athletic.
“Their argument is that there are things they have done that would be wrong under the present rules,” adds the former chief executive. “But under the rules at the time and the way they submitted the information, they believe, was all above board”.
“They may get sanctioned because they didn’t account for something properly, but they are confident that when it comes to the big things, which they feel would be wrong in today’s market but fine under a different set of rules as they were back then, they won’t get sanctioned.”
“There are probably four outcomes; they’re acquitted, there’s a huge fine and small points deduction, there’s a huge points deduction or they’re kicked out of the league. But we just don’t know without seeing the in-depth evidence. And just because someone has been charged 115 times, it doesn’t mean they’re guilty.”
Interesting article in the Athletic (behind paywall). Does anyone have clues about what it means by present rules or a different set of rules in bold?
Ha ha has he?Tbf, he has said he isn't a City fan. Chelsea isn't it?
I thought this was quite balanced. gave a lot of credit to the team and when fans called in whinging we just bought our success the host pointed out that it was the same as it ever was.
One fan (derby?) got laughed at for trying to compare city to the post office in using lawyers to defend ourselves, if innocent it wouldn’t be needed! how dare we!
Especially by Chelsea and Newcastle fans on SaturdayThat's why , despite the media, most fans wish us well across the country. We have players and a fan base who are well liked.
.... on the run.Only another 95 to go. Then we'll have won 115 league titles.