PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

mccity said:
Saying that, he did get one thing right. He has accurately identified Magic Hat as a know-nothing chancer. Yet another Johnny-come-lately red-top fan who doesn't know his arse from his elbow and thinks that if he can write long enough paragraphs and post enough pictures, people will think they're smart, much like that Swedish Ramble con artist.
Click to expand...
Almost sesquipedalian some might say.

Agree 100% about Harris’ nature, that’s confirmation that he is a **** of the highest order and City bias genuinely doesn’t even slightly come into that assessment.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
You're talking through your arse(nal) here. This is absolute nonsense.

First, the 5-year limitation period is in UEFA's FFP rules, and nothing to do with CAS.

Second, we were cleared by CAS of the substantive charge levelled against us by UEFA's CFCB, which is that our commercial sponsorships were disguised equity funding. The initial press release from CAS, on 13th July was quite explicit on that point.

Third, the time-barred element of the case (the Etisalat sponsorship) was examined by CAS, who cleared it as being done properly. This oft-repeated claim by the hard-of-thinking, that we only got off due to time-barring, is a complete myth.

Finally, although it's not stated explicitly that there's a time limitation in the PL rules, it is stated that English law applies, which means there's a 6-year limitation period. They can go back further if there's evidence of criminality or fraud though, which is effectively what we've been accused of. But if the PL's Independent Commission finds no evidence of fraudulent activity then pretty well every part of the PL's case falls as time-barred. And if there's no evidence of fraud, then it's highly unlikely we did much wrong at all anyway, which is a double whammy to our detractors, like you.

They say 3-word alliteration is a powerful communication trick so I'm going to use that technique and call you a thick Tarquin twat.
Click to expand...
You’re on fire Colin ☄️
 
Elbow beards said:
I'm confused, if this magic hat bloke is saying much the same as Harris, why is he arguing with him?
Click to expand...
NH (rightly imo) thinks he's rehashing old news as new evidence, and thinks his interpretation of the evidence is naive at best and ludicrous at worst. He wants to know what his experience is based on the fact that the hat fella thinks the emails will be enough to secure a guilty verdict when anyone close to the case and/or familiar with how these things work are adamant they won't be.
 
bridgeno1 said:
You're reading that 'the mask has slipped' into all that? Sorry but that's just paranoid on your part.

For what it's worth I think if you've got money to invest in your own football team you should be able to do so however you choose fit. The point I was trying to make was that at the end of the day, talk of relegations is wide of the mark and that my feeling is that a deal will be cut behind the scenes so that everyone can move on. The reasons for this are 2-fold. Firstly so City can move forward so it will be in their interests to bring it to a close ASAP. But secondly it's hardly in the PL's interests for City to be found guilty of the most severe charges. PL football is a highly marketable brand - not going to look good if its prize asset of the last decade gets slapped with massive penalties and makes it look like the PL has been presiding over a dogs dinner. Money talks at the end of the day in big business.
Click to expand...
"it's hardly in the PL's interest for City to be found guilty of the most severe charges"

Why would the "PL's interests" even enter into it? Let's start with "Are City guilty"? You have clearly concluded they are. Can I ask on what basis and what evidence?
 
dickie davies said:
Actually, it is true
Friends of ours emigrated to Australia around 20 years ago
My daughter (27 years old) posted pics on Instagram of us at the parade and the Dad commented back something along the lines of "what are you celebrating for? You've got 115 charges to face"

He's not stupid. He works as a regional manager for one of the largest banks in Australia and is a lifetime Ipswich supporter
Click to expand...
Do you mean he's not stupid because he works in a bank or he's not stupid because nudge nudge wink wink he said we got 115 charges?
 
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