PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[eastmanc]

So many ridiculous, irrelevant straw man arguments it's barely worth even trying to debate with you.

If any club decided to ignore or circumvent FFP/PSR then I'd say good luck to them as its a corrupt, unjust and iniquitous ruling aimed at giving an advantage to certain clubs over others ... if a club decides that the handball or offside rule no longer applies to them then obviously they deserve to be sanctioned because its a fair and just rule that is there for the benefit of the game as a whole, is applied even handedly and offers no advantage to any one club over another.

Chelsea have had a good go at ignoring PSR since the Americans took over.

 

[eastmanc]

I'm not a barrister but i've been in courts and I preferred paper bundles. I found it easier to put my finger on things I wanted as I'm not good at multi tasking and arsing aroung with tech under pressure isn't easy I'm sure Pannick has lackeys who's job is to do all that at the click of his fingers though.

Pannik is a FOC he won't have a clue about new technology. :-)

 

[Gazza]

If/when we win, do we get a points addition?

 

[cheekybids]

Isn't that "digitised"?

Never mind. Stupid, pedantic point and probably wrong anyway :)

No, that’s when a Dr gives you a prostate exam.

 

[Bobby Taylor's Pub Team]

It is a strange way to do it for such an educated an talented man.

As the bundle would be so thick as to be problematic and involve moving from page to page (quite often not in order).

It is probably worth noting any bundle will be being given to numerous parties, so the boxes may not be as big as they seem.

However, my opinion on this is probably the same as giving tactic to Pep, he’d probably smile politely whilst thinking what are you on about!

Having document in hand as a physical prop is a much better look I imagine. Rather being some stereotyped FOC trying to find the right key on their laptop while squinting at the screen over spectacles and worrying whether the battery is about to die. Leave that to the assistant.

 

[TedofChume]

One of the lads near me at the match last night said that Esteemedkompany had tweeted that Lord Pannick got half the charges dropped on Monday. I've not seen the tweet and can't find it.

Apparently, the Premier League barrister read out the charges and Pannick presented the original document, and said (something along the lines of), "No. This is what you originally charged City with, this is what we are defending." and the panel agreed.

Does anyone know about this tweet or heard anything similar?

I delved using a few computer tools and have done a video, ( it needs finishing) on this very subject. Basically there are 15 differences in the text on this page as it stands now, compared to what it said origonally on 06 Feb 23 (It's been changed several times).

Premier League statement

www.premierleague.com

This could totally wreck the case, as the first errors were all in allegation 1, they missed the letter of several of them...

I'll try to finish it and upload it to YouTube at the weekend.

Any links to that tweet would be appreciated?

 

[HelloCity]

One of the lads near me at the match last night said that Esteemedkompany had tweeted that Lord Pannick got half the charges dropped on Monday. I've not seen the tweet and can't find it.

Apparently, the Premier League barrister read out the charges and Pannick presented the original document, and said (something along the lines of), "No. This is what you originally charged City with, this is what we are defending." and the panel agreed.

Does anyone know about this tweet or heard anything similar?

I delved using a few computer tools and have done a video, ( it needs finishing) on this very subject. Basically there are 15 differences in the text on this page as it stands now, compared to what it said origonally on 06 Feb 23 (It's been changed several times).

Premier League statement

www.premierleague.com

This could totally wreck the case, as the first errors were all in allegation 1, they missed the letter of several of them...

I'll try to finish it and upload it to YouTube at the weekend.

Any links to that tweet would be appreciated?

Sounds like complete and utter fantasy, mate.

You don’t see the tweet because it probably never happened :)

(Stand to be corrected of course)

 

[Gaz (FMwkdsoul)]

The amount of 'theories' on what could happen is gonna be wild if its 'kickout of all comps' this early in the papers.

We're not even a week in.. not doubt the club will have to be folded and punted into space by week 6 to keep print being written.

Christ.

 

[Gaz (FMwkdsoul)]

One of the lads near me at the match last night said that Esteemedkompany had tweeted that Lord Pannick got half the charges dropped on Monday. I've not seen the tweet and can't find it.

Apparently, the Premier League barrister read out the charges and Pannick presented the original document, and said (something along the lines of), "No. This is what you originally charged City with, this is what we are defending." and the panel agreed.

Does anyone know about this tweet or heard anything similar?

I delved using a few computer tools and have done a video, ( it needs finishing) on this very subject. Basically there are 15 differences in the text on this page as it stands now, compared to what it said origonally on 06 Feb 23 (It's been changed several times).

Premier League statement

www.premierleague.com

This could totally wreck the case, as the first errors were all in allegation 1, they missed the letter of several of them...

I'll try to finish it and upload it to YouTube at the weekend.

Any links to that tweet would be appreciated?

@twosips just tag him and ask the man himself. Ste?

 

[Manchester_lalala]

One of the lads near me at the match last night said that Esteemedkompany had tweeted that Lord Pannick got half the charges dropped on Monday. I've not seen the tweet and can't find it.

Apparently, the Premier League barrister read out the charges and Pannick presented the original document, and said (something along the lines of), "No. This is what you originally charged City with, this is what we are defending." and the panel agreed.

Does anyone know about this tweet or heard anything similar?

I delved using a few computer tools and have done a video, ( it needs finishing) on this very subject. Basically there are 15 differences in the text on this page as it stands now, compared to what it said origonally on 06 Feb 23 (It's been changed several times).

Premier League statement

www.premierleague.com

This could totally wreck the case, as the first errors were all in allegation 1, they missed the letter of several of them...

I'll try to finish it and upload it to YouTube at the weekend.

Any links to that tweet would be appreciated?

Sounds like bullshit to me. I don’t think there’s any chance that City will have leaked anything that happened on the first day of the hearing.

 

[Mancini’s Pastilles]

Can city use any of these accusations and media driven hate. For our argument?

 

[halfcenturyup]

One of the lads near me at the match last night said that Esteemedkompany had tweeted that Lord Pannick got half the charges dropped on Monday. I've not seen the tweet and can't find it.

Apparently, the Premier League barrister read out the charges and Pannick presented the original document, and said (something along the lines of), "No. This is what you originally charged City with, this is what we are defending." and the panel agreed.

Does anyone know about this tweet or heard anything similar?

I delved using a few computer tools and have done a video, ( it needs finishing) on this very subject. Basically there are 15 differences in the text on this page as it stands now, compared to what it said origonally on 06 Feb 23 (It's been changed several times).

Premier League statement

www.premierleague.com

This could totally wreck the case, as the first errors were all in allegation 1, they missed the letter of several of them...

I'll try to finish it and upload it to YouTube at the weekend.

Any links to that tweet would be appreciated?

I think you will find it matters not one jot what the PL put in a press release. What matters is what was referred to the chair of the disciplinary panel and more to the point, what was accepted by the chair of the disciplinary panel. And he won't be throwing out any allegations just because they were later corrected for clerical errors, even if that was the case, which I doubt.

 

[GortonBlue62]

I don’t get to check Bluemoon as much as I used to, and I definitely don’t have the time to scroll through 6,000+ pages in this thread, so apologies if this has already been discussed to death! I’m really just curious to hear people’s thoughts on one thing. IF City are found guilty of these charges, how do you think it will impact the fan base and our support moving forward?

Will we lose some fans, or do you think it will actually strengthen the bond between us as supporters? Personally, while I’d be disappointed, I’ll still back the club all the way. No matter the outcome, my support won’t change.

But what about future fans? Especially those who are just getting into football. Do you think this situation could put them off supporting City, or will they still be drawn in by the football we play and the culture around the club?

I’d love to hear how others feel about it and what you think might happen if things don’t go our way.

I suspect it will make the core support more determined than ever. For a couple of years now I've been picking and choosing away games instead of doing them all. If the unlikely happens and we did get relegated I'd start doing them all again.

I started watching City at the end of the 60s and by the mid 70s we were getting really good average attendances. There was a famous home game before my time with an attendance if ~8000 and I always thought I'd missed my chance to prove my loyalty. Well unfortunately it all went to shit and crowds ~3000 in the Full Members and Auto Windshield Cups gave me the perfect opportunity to 'prove myself'.

We'll be fine whatever the fuckers throw at us.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Some people prefer the tactility and flexibility of paper, especially as it’s a known quantity and a medium they’ve operated with for many years. If those papers are ours then I guess Pannick will prefer operating that way, and like a chef with his knives he will want it ‘just so’ in his workplace, so he can perform to his best. It’s his case to run as he sees fit.

Things are more digitalised now, but it’s not obligatory upon the person conducting the case, although they will still need to use that platform more widely in the hearing, such as with witnesses.

Don’t think there’s any grandstanding, as it looks a bit daft and anachronistic imo.

Probably true, but he will be up in front of retired judges, presumably, who have been doing things that way for longer than he has. Make the old dears feel comfortable is my advice instead of having them floundering in front of a computer screen much to everyone's amusement ....

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Probably true, but he will be up in front of retired judges, presumably, who have been doing things that way for longer than he has. Make the old dears feel comfortable is my advice instead of having them floundering in front of a computer screen much to everyone's amusement ....

I expect The tribunal will have no choice but to operate via a digital platform and will most likely be adept at it.

 

[mexico1970]

It'd be interesting if they had this tribunal/trial/witch-hunt on PPV, I reckon the protagonists would make a fair old killing.

 

[Mid Wales blue]

Isn't that "digitised"?

Never mind. Stupid, pedantic point and probably wrong anyway :)

I’m pretty sure that’s when you poke someone in the eye!

 

[GortonBlue62]

I expect The tribunal will have no choice but to operate via a digital platform and will most likely be adept at it.

You know when you see legal dramas on TV, both British and American, the lawyers' office walls have hundreds of expensive leather bound books, is that all a relic of the past?

Would a lawyer ever consult a book rather than search an online database
these days?

 

[r.soleofsalford]

Just remind me who Ian Darke is? Seriously.

I’d struggle to pick him out of a two man line.

 

[bluemonkey71]

One of the lads near me at the match last night said that Esteemedkompany had tweeted that Lord Pannick got half the charges dropped on Monday. I've not seen the tweet and can't find it.

Apparently, the Premier League barrister read out the charges and Pannick presented the original document, and said (something along the lines of), "No. This is what you originally charged City with, this is what we are defending." and the panel agreed.

Does anyone know about this tweet or heard anything similar?

I delved using a few computer tools and have done a video, ( it needs finishing) on this very subject. Basically there are 15 differences in the text on this page as it stands now, compared to what it said origonally on 06 Feb 23 (It's been changed several times).

Premier League statement

www.premierleague.com

This could totally wreck the case, as the first errors were all in allegation 1, they missed the letter of several of them...

I'll try to finish it and upload it to YouTube at the weekend.

Any links to that tweet would be appreciated?

Have you tried the wayback machine - internet archive to see the changes?

A quick look between two versions in February shows changes:

1. In respect of each of Seasons 2009/10 to 2017/18 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those seasons that required provision by a member club to the Premier League, in the utmost good faith, of accurate financial information that gives a true and fair view of the club’s financial position, in particular with respect to its revenue (including sponsorship revenue), its related parties and its operating costs, namely:
(a) for Season 2009/10, Premier League Rules B.13, C.71, C.72, C.75 (amended to C.79 from 10 September 2009 for the remainder of Season 2009/10) and C.80;


1. In respect of each of Seasons 2009/10 to 2017/18 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those seasons that required provision by a member club to the Premier League, in the utmost good faith, of accurate financial information that gives a true and fair view of the club’s financial position, in particular with respect to its revenue (including sponsorship revenue), its related parties and its operating costs, namely:
(a) for Season 2009/10, Premier League Rules B.13, C.71, C.72 and C.75 (from 10 September 2009, Premier League Rules B.13, C.71, C.72, C.79 and C.80);