PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Much as I'm loath to admit I read it, there has been a definite change in tone at the Daily Fail. This is from one of the recent articles about our dominance:
"...there is a shadow hanging over these triumphs in the shape of the 115 charges levelled against City by the Premier League, alleging financial breaches that happened before Guardiola came to the club but which, if proven, will stain these triumphs.

City’s case may be heard this winter. A verdict may be reached some time next year. They may be exonerated of all the charges."

The bits I've highlighted in bold weren't being written a month ago and the "may be exonerated of all charges" has appeared in more than one article. I think that phrase is significant because it never appeared before.

They're definitely back-peddling and I'm happy to believe that that is because they've been tipped off that we will be exonerated.
 
Colin Bell (genuine name) said:
I think we can successfully argue the non co-operation allegations precisely because of CAS.

My understanding is that CAS were annoyed with City because had City provided the evidence to UEFA that they presented at CAS then they believed UEFA would have no option but to find that there was no evidence of their allegations.

The Premier League had access to the full CAS report and the evidence provided by City.

Unless The Premier League have new evidence that they could make specific requests of City then all they have been doing is fishing. In my opinion, but I might be talking bollocks.
Click to expand...

Our argument would be that they didn't need the information requested, but any involvement I have had in legal proceedings - quite different to this I should add - are that procedural requirements are black and white and if information is requested we should be providing it regardless of our thoughts on whether it is relevant. I'm sure there are added complexities here, probably interlinked to the club's desire to keep things out of the public domain, but I would still anticipate a non-cooperation charge of some sort. That could be a suspended charge on the basis we comply in the future.
 
Avenell Road said:
Personally, I’d find it hard to believe that such a threat was made. It would likely be seen as undiplomatic. However, if this had actually been intimated by Abu Dhabi at government level to the UK, I’d be surprised if it would make a difference. After all, it didn’t stop the Government putting the kibosh on the Abu Dhabi backed bid for the Telegraph and Spectator.

Also, the value of UAE investment in the UK is relatively small compared to that of other countries. In 2021, the UAE and the UK signed agreements for further inward investment into the UK and I’m not sure the UAE would renege on that. Even if they did, they would be replaced by other investors eager to take advantage of any fire sale. The UAE are far too smart for that. Lastly, this is really a matter for City, the Premier League and a multitude of lawyers. It would be inappropriate for either Government in my view, to involve itself in such a parochial matter.

Shankly was wrong. Football is not more important than life and death. Both the UK and UAE have far more weighty matters to concern them. Not least, the Israel/Gaza conflict, Iran, Yemen, Ukraine/Russia and China’s sabre rattling over Taiwan.
Click to expand...
It was said in jest, however I’ve no doubt it will have been discussed, especially with the uk government.
 
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