PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Stoned Rose said:
Whether we agree with the rules or not, rules are rules.

It’d be like a shoplifter getting convicted of nicking a load of clothes from JD then saying “nah mate the rules are snide, so it doesn’t count”.

We signed up to the rules. If we didn’t agree with them we shouldn’t have done.
Click to expand...

Well we had little choice but to sign up for the rules as without doing so we wouldn't have been allowed to play in the competition. It doesn't mean we agreed with them. It also doesn't mean that we broke them.
 
BerkshireBlue said:
you're wrong, the rule is the rule as written. See the Leicester case where the PL lost due to the rule being written as it is. That is how law works, it's not oh we actually meant this by that rule. The PL are a sloppy organisation and the rules are sloppily written and quite frankly opens the door for the city solicitors to walk through really easily. Again this is all pre 2014 before they cracked down and the rules.
Click to expand...

Solicitors?

I've already explained the difference with the Leicester case.

But I am done arguing my case. If I am wrong, the hearing will be finished by the end of this week after the club has presented the filing dates for the accounts and the required future financial information. That isn't going to happen.

And, without wanting to open up a new front, exactly what changes were made to the most serious rules that are alleged to have been breached (the first tranche) after 2014? I think you will find those rules are pretty much the same now as they were in 2009/10.
 
Last edited:
kaz7 said:
i think tney will make something stick , they just cant be seen to have taken it this far for nothing . This good faith thing seems a grey area

i too trust khaldoon 100%
Click to expand...
Many on here put this argument forward in the run up to CAS. But I don't think you were ever one of them kaz. What's changed?
 
Coatigan said:
Not really. It is very much a judgement call and could all come down to interpretation of the rules and accounting practices.
Click to expand...
That would mean you think there’s a sliding scale on what we’ve been accused of. Like we disguised some owner funding as sponsorship and filed fraudulent accounts and had companies invest billions after due diligence, but its ok because if you interpret the premier league rules this way its kind of allowed.

Of course I dont know but I just can’t believe its this grey. I’ll accept whatever decision comes and any appeal of a guilty verdict* just wont wash for me personally. Im choosing to believe that this process is fair and independent because to not do so is just too big of a conspiracy.

*I’m 99% confident of a non guilty verdict based on the severity of the charges (so serious that its barely believable) and reaction of our leadership team.
 
The way I look at it, the vast majority of opposition fans and the media are painting a picture that we are fucked. Funnily enough though none have them have any access to the evidence or scope of the charges.

On the other hand we have the management team and ownership at City, they know the charges, the scope and the evidence and by all accounts they are quite chilled about it, I think it was Tolm that said we feel more confident than we did in the Uefa case.

So, based on this I know which side of the fence I am taking.
 
slbsn said:
If I was the PL, I'd be cross examining every witness. The Mancini matter is dead with an unchallenged witness statement. If a witness statement is unchallenged, the panel are likely to accept every word as unchallenged evidence ie fact.
Click to expand...
What if he (and others) decline to be cross examined?
 
Stoned Rose said:
Whether we agree with the rules or not, rules are rules.

It’d be like a shoplifter getting convicted of nicking a load of clothes from JD then saying “nah mate the rules are snide, so it doesn’t count”.

We signed up to the rules. If we didn’t agree with them we shouldn’t have done.
Click to expand...
Nah, very poor comparison, there are plenty of rules and laws that are just and justified and are there for the good of society as a whole and are applied even handedly.. then there are some rules that are entirely unjust and iniquitous and only in place to benefit and enrich a certain section of society, chiefly the wealthy and privileged.

And what do you think would have happened if we hadn't signed up to the rules?

We had no choice but to sign up to them or else we would have faced the same persecution, vilification and potential punishment that we're now experiencing.
 
M18CTID said:
UEFA spent years investigating us too and look how that ended for them at CAS. They also broke their own time-barring rules in order to find us guilty on some of the charges which is beyond desperation. And that’s despite them having a legal team.

Obviously, there’s no CAS this time but the IC is pretty much the equivalent of CAS in that it will be independent of the PL which should result in a fair hearing.

Is it a wishy washy case? On the face of it, I think it is. No doubt there were questions for us to answer but the evidence appears to be only circumstantial and if this was being heard in a proper court of law I reckon it would’ve been thrown out before it even got there. Of course, there could be a “smoking gun” that none of us aware of and City could’ve been lying to us all along about their innocence but I don’t buy that, not least because of Pep’s bullishness in recent press conferences. I don’t think he’d be saying those things if the club weren’t confident of their position.
Click to expand...
Great post. I hope you're right pal!
 
halfcenturyup said:
Solicitors?

I've already explained the difference with the Leicester case.

But I am done arguing my case. If I am wrong, the hearing will be finished by the end of this week after the club has presented the filing dates for the accounts and the required future financial information. That isn't going to happen.

And, without wanting to open up a new front, exactly what changes were made to the most serious rules that are alleged to have been breached (the first tranche) after 2014? I think you will find those rules are pretty much the same mow as they were in 2009/10.
Click to expand...
The rules are nothing like they were in 2009/10 have you done any research on it whatsoever
 
jacko74 said:
Nah, very poor comparison, there are plenty of rules and laws that are just and justified and are there for the good of society as a whole and are applied even handedly.. then there are some rules that are entirely unjust and iniquitous and only in place to benefit and enrich a certain section of society, chiefly the wealthy and privileged.

And what do you think would have happened if we hadn't signed up to the rules?

We had no choice but to sign up to them or else we would have faced the same persecution, vilification and potential punishment that we're now experiencing.
Click to expand...

“then there are some rules that are entirely unjust and iniquitous and only in place to benefit and enrich a certain section of society, chiefly the wealthy and privileged”

Give me some examples?

Whether we had a choice or not to sign up is irrelevant. What is relevant is that we did. Therefore, we simply have to abide by the rules.

Your “it’d be ok to breach the rules because I don’t agree with them” approach is infantile and not how the real world works.

Let’s say the dippers now go and breach a raft of the rules and as result won the next 5 prems, would you back them if they took the stance of “fuck it, the rules are shit anyway” and advocate for them avoiding sanctions?
 
Last edited:
danielwood5 said:
That's the kind of thing I was querying, would things like that come under disguised owner investment now? Would anything like that have to be declared?
It seems like these new financial rules would have to be incredibly convoluted to cover all the eventualities and it feels like the Premier League are using the whole 'bad faith' clause to do a lot of the heavy lifting in the regulations which, as we saw with Leicester, doesn't seem like the best idea.
Click to expand...

They were both before the rules & only a few years apart with no time limits……
 
Stoned Rose said:
“then there are some rules that are entirely unjust and iniquitous and only in place to benefit and enrich a certain section of society, chiefly the wealthy and privileged”

Give me some examples?
Click to expand...
Well the Income tax laws for one... if you're very wealthy or a very high earner then there's all manner of loopholes and tax breaks you can exploit to quite legally avoid paying your full obligation (just ask Saint Marcus) but if you're just a lowly average earning PAYE employee then suck it up buttercup and pay your full due.
 
jacko74 said:
Well the Income tax laws for one... if you're very wealthy or a very high earner then there's all manner of loopholes and tax breaks you can exploit to quite legally avoid paying your full obligation (just ask Saint Marcus) but if you're just a lowly average earning PAYE employee then suck it up buttercup and pay your full due.
Click to expand...

But do you breach the tax rules then go “rules are shit, so I can’t be punished?”.
 
slbsn said:
If I was the PL, I'd be cross examining every witness. The Mancini matter is dead with an unchallenged witness statement. If a witness statement is unchallenged, the panel are likely to accept every word as unchallenged evidence ie fact.
Click to expand...

He said no one had even spoken to him in the first 4 years of an investigation before charging us. How can this be?
 
Masters is smug tonight with a carrot adorned in an utd kit ready for his ricker because City never won.
No mention of us not being beaten for 2 full yrs at home
 
Stoned Rose said:
Whether we agree with the rules or not, rules are rules.

It’d be like a shoplifter getting convicted of nicking a load of clothes from JD then saying “nah mate the rules are snide, so it doesn’t count”.

We signed up to the rules. If we didn’t agree with them we shouldn’t have done.
Click to expand...
The rules were only brought in to fuck us over.
 
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