PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

vincent said:
All depends if it last the 12 weeks. If it’s over let’s say 7or 8 weeks it could be done in January.
Click to expand...

True. @slbsn says there will be a couple of days reading first. A couple of days laughing at the charges, a day for deliberation and it could be finished by Friday lunchtime :)

Edit: Just to be clear he only said the first bit. I made the rest up .....
 
Last edited:
halfcenturyup said:
Meh. I could write it now based on "executives of PL clubs have told me", "an ex-coach of a rival club said", " insiders have indicated", "senior sports lawyers are of the opinion" and the like. You are overestimating how much in the press is informed and how much is purely speculative.
Click to expand...
That doesn’t make sense the press won’t change the narrative unless we come out and explain why they won’t make stuff up with exec told me or ex coach said etc for our benefit
 
Invisible Man's Bandage said:
The only real good news about this is that seemingly the hearing will be starting shortly and we should know the outcome before the end of the season. My feeling is that it will be no sooner than early March. Hopefully we will largely win but if not I'll put my big boy pants on and deal with it. I've had enough of waiting and whatever the outcome is it can't come soon enough.
Click to expand...

Pics of the pants?
 
WRicko said:
That doesn’t make sense the press won’t change the narrative unless we come out and explain why they won’t make stuff up with exec told me or ex coach said etc for our benefit
Click to expand...

Naah. The press won't change the narrative if they don't want to. There has been a position for unbiased takes on all this for a year and a half and yet there is only one. Martin Samuel isn't much smarter than the other sports journalists I don't believe, yet there is no-one else out there putting over a balanced case. There is a reason for that. And it's nothing to do with City's approach, I don't think.
 
Centurions said:
A few lawyers in the family? I guess the smart gene bypassed you then unless you really are talking about a castrated goat.
Click to expand...
Have I typed anything aggressive or rude in here to get these responses?? I'm in tech, just gave my opinion. I'm not sure what is worthy of such vitriol.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Fair enough. Nobody knows for sure at the moment.

But consider this. There are many, many more explanations as to why the PL made 115 allegations ranging from the innocuous (for example, the PL had 115 questions that weren't ticked off by evidence produced by the club, and four years was long enough) to the malicious (for example, the PL has been pressured into it by rival clubs to damage City's reputation) than the explanation you are positing (which is that the club's executives, directors, owners, sponsors and auditors have been conspiring for over a decade to deceive the PL and were then stupid enough to talk about it openly in meetings, emails and Godknowswhatelse, when there were hundreds of other ways to do what they wanted to do completely undiscovered, and perfectly "legally").

I don't know any of the guys involved personally, of course, but I do know they aren't fucking stupid.
Click to expand...
I completely agree, but clever people have lost trials before. That's all I'm saying.
 
foggy1974 said:
Whether you have lawyers in your family or not is a mute point. The EPL would have charged us 1st & then the lawyers would have got involved.

Can you explain why the Mcfc & the premier league in a joint enterprise went to court to stop this becoming common knowledge
Click to expand...
The Premier League includes all other teams, I think they all understand that the public having an eye on the fuckery they do behind the scenes on any case isn't a good idea. Wether they like City or not.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Naah. He isn't trying to develop a reputation as a City mouthpiece, he is trying to develop a reputation as an impartial financial expert. He has to be everywhere he can be, and as often as he can be, to do that. Not a criticism, just a fact.
Click to expand...
"just a fact" you say?

I don't think Stefan will thank you for that, but you do raise an interesting point, what you're essentially saying is he's piggy backing this issue in order "to develop a reputation as an impartial financial expert".

In other words he's doing this for his own self promotion. Of course there's nothing intrinsically wrong with that. Who can seriously question that Stefan has gone from a relative nobody to a somebody with these appearances, if I were him I might well have done the same.

Not surprisingly that's exactly what Nick Harris believes is his motivation.

halfcenturyup said:
It's not anything I would want to do. Financial experts are rapidly joining journalists somewhere down in the gutter of the world of information sharing but I can understand what he is doing and why.
Click to expand...

If I'm reading you right, what you "understand" is he's exploiting City's situation for his own ends and consequently he's up for anywhere and everywhere.

I'm beginning to think you might be right, and if you are right, from a professional standpoint I applaud him, opportunities like this are rare, good luck to him.

But as a blue he's doing us no favours, touting his wares passively and uncritically to those who wish us harm. I know in the past he's justified his appearances on Talksport as the sole voice of reason, and his quiet humiliation of Jordan was amusing in the early days, but Redmen TV for crying out loud! He's not a fool, he must've known what they'd do with that little chat and quelle surprise they did what everyone knew they'd do....



I don't like to speak ill of anyone and I've admired what Stefan has done in the past and will no doubt continue to do as this all heats up, and I can't deny that it's down to him that I know a great deal more about the process than I did before. But if he is going to promote himself off the back of this, he needs to get politically savvy and real quick.
 
Last edited:
kevlardog said:
Not at all, I just think that all of this is based on the facts and info we know so far. We do not have any of the new info/evidence the PL will use (if they even have any), so I'm hesitant to build confidence without any knowledge of their new "findings".
Click to expand...
What evidence do you have that the PL actually has any new findings?
 
kevlardog said:
I have a few lawyers in my family and it's not that uncommon to take your time building a ecase you perceive to be good. Wether it's actually any good is a separate thing. But just because it took long isn't necessarily telling of anything.
Click to expand...
But you're not building a case. You're saying quite simply that you're worried (allegedly) that the PL might have uncovered some new evidence that they hadn't found in the first years of their "investigation".
 
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