PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

It’s funny PSR/FFP is there to stop clubs going out of business (allegedly).
But the PL, the media and all the other clubs are trying to do just that.
They don’t just want us relegated they want us gone, permanently.
 
Lost for words said:
Regarding Leicester and the failed PSR case in which it was said that the wording was not fit for purpose, no-one needs an education beyond grammar school level to understand that the incorrect use of punctuation marks, or lack of them, can make a vast difference in what a sentence is meant to be implying. What a turn up that would be if our case was dropped for the same reason. Our understanding of the rules versus the EPLs own version.
Click to expand...
I used to live in town. Never forget the ambiguous headline I saw on Shudehill billboard when it was rumoured Les Ferdinand may have been joining us:

Les says City

No comma, no speech marks.

Compare and contrast :
“Les says, ‘City’”
“Les” says City.’
 
I'm Blue said:
It’s funny PSR/FFP is there to stop clubs going out of business (allegedly).
But the PL, the media and all the other clubs are trying to do just that.
They don’t just want us relegated they want us gone, permanently.
Click to expand...
Yes, and once we have gone then the EPL will effectively be a permanent three team league which will die through a lack of interest.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
As you well know, you don't use a witness who can harm your case more than they can help it. I can't believe they expect to land the Mancini-related charges.

Given the outcome at CAS, I also can't believe they expect they can land the sponsorship charges. If I'm right that they knew about Fordham back in 2015, and neither UEFA nor the PL did anything at the time or subsequently, then they surely can't be confident they can land that either. So why do this?

We've speculated that it's just to damage our reputation, which looks more and more like a rational explanation, plus they might hope to get us on the non-cooperation allegations. Given the cost of this to the PL, if I was one of the non-cartel member clubs of the PL, I'd be asking some very searching questions once this is over.
Click to expand...
But surely PB the premier league’s legal advisors would be coming across with the same view would they not be advising them on this that it is a no no,they can’t be that stupid to not take proper legal advice surely and run with something that may make them look a laughing stock..
 

Toranaga sama said:
City said in the official statement that they have "Comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence". I have always wondered what that might be..? Is it Audit report, Bank transaction details, Full chain of email conversations or something else...?

What's your thought on that, PB....?
Click to expand...

It’s the signed off audited accounts, of course we will have more to substantiate it (possibly including what you mention).

But for me it’s posturing and building up the accounts.

Have them at the start point and make them credible and then the PL has a hell of a job disproving them with I’m guessing just circumstancal evidence
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
As you well know, you don't use a witness who can harm your case more than they can help it. I can't believe they expect to land the Mancini-related charges.

Given the outcome at CAS, I also can't believe they expect they can land the sponsorship charges. If I'm right that they knew about Fordham back in 2015, and neither UEFA nor the PL did anything at the time or subsequently, then they surely can't be confident they can land that either. So why do this?

We've speculated that it's just to damage our reputation, which looks more and more like a rational explanation, plus they might hope to get us on the non-cooperation allegations. Given the cost of this to the PL, if I was one of the non-cartel member clubs of the PL, I'd be asking some very searching questions once this is over.
Click to expand...

The rest of the PL just do what they are told by the cartel clubs in my view.

However, I don’t feel we are too far from an uprising as people have seen those views for what they are.

I expect there will follow a relaxing of the rules to help the so called lesser teams (sure that was Masters word).
 
deano ou812 said:
But surely PB the premier league’s legal advisors would be coming across with the same view would they not be advising them on this that it is a no no,they can’t be that stupid to not take proper legal advice surely and run with something that may make them look a laughing stock..
Click to expand...
I'm not sure that logic or reason play much part in the PL's approach deano.
 
Champions again in 2012 said:
I really love Pep's mentality, especially the phrase “I want to defend my club, …”
Click to expand...

Love him to, but he came out and said his piece last week.

I think we should go with the line of respecting the process and therefore will not be making any further comment until after the trail has been heard and a judgment has been made.

Give Pep a rest
 
johnnytapia said:
I used to live in town. Never forget the ambiguous headline I saw on Shudehill billboard when it was rumoured Les Ferdinand may have been joining us:

Les says City

No comma, no speech marks.

Compare and contrast :
“Les says, ‘City’”
“Les”, says City.’
Click to expand...
 
Stoned Rose said:
This non cooperation element baffles me.

If we have genuinely not provided such and such a document, or spreadsheet or witness statement, how would they be able to prove the alleged breach that relates to?
Remember the emphasis is on them to prove not us to disprove.

I get that an adverse inference could be drawn but that doesn’t necessarily amount to proof.

Also, would there be some “cut off point” for not cooperating on whatever issue? So for eg the PL say we need such and such a document by 1st May and we don’t provide it, but provide it a week later, would that still be non cooperation even though we have factually provided the document?

Would there be any criteria where not providing something is actually ok?
Click to expand...

How can they accuse us of non-cooperation on Mancinis contract if they never spoke to Mancini or the club. Imagine we say that’s not true but you need to speak to the parties involved. If they can’t prove they made any effort then they’ve not cooperated with their own investigation.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
I'm not sure that logic or reason play much part in the PL's approach deano.
Click to expand...
I’ll get my niece’s take on it when I’m visiting her in a few weeks she’s a sports lawyer so to speak it’ll be interesting to hear her views on this whole shambles I think she’ll come down on the side of what stefan has kept saying the burden of proof or the high bar that a number of high profile people in positions of power have committed fraud on a large scale is going to be hard to prove..
 
deano ou812 said:
But surely PB the premier league’s legal advisors would be coming across with the same view would they not be advising them on this that it is a no no,they can’t be that stupid to not take proper legal advice surely and run with something that may make them look a laughing stock..
Click to expand...

Alan Harper's Tash said:
Click to expand...


Love that. Up there with Maradona singing City at the derby.
 
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