PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

halfcenturyup said:
Don't remember seeing that in the CAS findings, tbh. Iirc, once it was time limited, they didn't waste any more time on it. Was it from the club's submission maybe?
Click to expand...

It's on page 25 but it's part of our submission to CAS. However in that, it says that UEFA's Adjudicatory Chamber found that everything was OK with the Etisalat sponsorship and that Etisalat had fully met its obligations (see para 20).

@AirbagsOptionalTheReturn
 
Last edited:
AirbagsOptionalTheReturn said:
I will ask again, someone posted the section from the CAS findings re the time barred and the fact that it did not matter as the "charges" that were time barred were not valid, can someone post it again? I want to use it to shoot a know all Utd fan down (he never ever thinks he is wrong). Thanks all
Click to expand...
We bought CAS always trumps that. There's no arguing. But tell them their tears make it more pleasurable. That will shut them up.
 
AirbagsOptionalTheReturn said:
I will ask again, someone posted the section from the CAS findings re the time barred and the fact that it did not matter as the "charges" that were time barred were not valid, can someone post it again? I want to use it to shoot a know all Utd fan down (he never ever thinks he is wrong). Thanks all
Click to expand...
Prestwich_Blue said:

It's on page 25 but it's part of our submission to CAS. However in that, it says that UEFA's Adjudicatory Chamber found that everything was OK with the Etisalat sponsorship and that Etisalat had fully met its obligations (see para 20)
Click to expand...
Think this gentleman has got what your after
 
Prestwich_Blue said:

It's on page 25 but it's part of our submission to CAS. However in that, it says that UEFA's Adjudicatory Chamber found that everything was OK with the Etisalat sponsorship and that Etisalat had fully met its obligations (see para 20)
Click to expand...
@AirbagsOptionalTheReturn id just send your United acquaintance the CAS link, if they can’t be arsed to read the ‘no evidence’ words umpteen times, and all the rest of the real factual evidence dismissing everything, other than the self explanatory (due to massive leaking and vindictive & malicious prosecution of City) fine for noncooperation, then it’s not worth engaging , or wasting your valuable time on people who have a fantasy and myopic ideal of the whole farrago.
 
Eds said:
Wonder why the PL didn't look at transfers such as Rhian Brewster to Sheffield United for a reported fee of £23.5m in 2020. Scored 5 goals in 77 appearances. He hadn't even played in the dippers first team in the PL yet was sold for a ridiculously inflated fee.
Click to expand...
And Solanke to Bournemouth.

There appears to be a trend developing, but I can't put my finger on it
 
Prestwich_Blue said:

It's on page 25 but it's part of our submission to CAS. However in that, it says that UEFA's Adjudicatory Chamber found that everything was OK with the Etisalat sponsorship and that Etisalat had fully met its obligations (see para 20).

@AirbagsOptionalTheReturn
Click to expand...

Yes. This is the bit we are talking about, I think.

1000000499.png

From the club's submission. UEFA didn't agree with some of this in their submission, and CAS never looked at it.
 
Eds said:
Wonder why the PL didn't look at transfers such as Rhian Brewster to Sheffield United for a reported fee of £23.5m in 2020. Scored 5 goals in 77 appearances. He hadn't even played in the dippers first team in the PL yet was sold for a ridiculously inflated fee.
Click to expand...

Does the 2nd window at KFC in Droylsden nowadays.
 
Gorton_Tubster said:
We bought CAS always trumps that. There's no arguing. But tell them their tears make it more pleasurable. That will shut them up.
Click to expand...

If the CAS can be bought, how come the most corrupt country on the planet in Russia end up with their athletes banned from Olympic competitions for doping offences?
 
hertsblue said:
Just wished the club would of released a statement and hope they do if its all we charged with again in full detail why we failed to cooperate re the numerous leaks and even name names ie Times
Click to expand...
In the full report, there is credence given to City's argument that information was passed on, at least CAS did not deny its possibility. There was, of course, a reason for a reduction in the original non-cooperation fine.
 
oldius said:
In the full report, there is credence given to City's argument that information was passed on, at least CAS did not deny its possibility. There was, of course, a reason for a reduction in the original non-cooperation fine.
Click to expand...
It wasn't specified as a non co-operation fine though?
 
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