PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

The Light Was Yellow Sir said:
Sadly, given the state of the currently independently regulated water, energy, education, health, environment and many other sectors, I think your assumption in a football regulator doing anything is a tad optimistic.
Click to expand...
I understand / agree with that view

But without there being a regulator with the authority to prevent participation in an ESL - then I think that the cartel, with the other old G14 / ECA cartel clubs will get their way.

So - fingers crossed.
 
nmc said:
Be interesting to see their grounds of appeal, they lost on a point of law… no jurisdiction so really can’t see how they can reverse that. They look like an organisation that are really under pressure. Their response to the APT ruling was completely OTT.
Click to expand...

These are the grounds they can appeal on:

1000000889.png
So it looks like:

The decision was one which could not reasonably have been reached by any appeal board which had applied it's mind properly to the facts of the case,

Or,

The decision was reached as a result of a perverse interpretation of the law.

With the IC appeal heard by two retired judges and a KC I can't imagine they have any chance of success. Or recovering any costs. Which is why no-one thought they would do it ....

Weird.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
My sources, which are probably more reliable than theirs, tell me that Pep has been assured by the ownership that we have no case to answer. If he feels he's been lied to, then he'll be very angry and won't be staying any longer than necessary.
Click to expand...
If only life were that simple. Whichever way the case goes, I'd like to think he trusts what he's been told.
 
bluemonkey71 said:
Yet how do we know the PL have fully co-operated? All this mainstream bile about us being difficult. How do we know the PL haven't been doing the same when we have requested info from them.
Click to expand...
The APT evidence proves the PL behaved unreasonably in that case. They wilfully obstructed us at every stage. Didn’t answer emails, refused to help us, dragged it out for months costing us tens of millions in sponsorships. They have leaked negative stories relentlessly in the 115 case. They have acted in bad faith from day one. None of this is in doubt.
 
KS55 said:
Didn’t they hint that they would have won an appeal?
Click to expand...

So they could overturn allegations where they presented no credible evidence… by trying one more time. I think we are all guilty of giving these charlatans in positions of responsibility far more credibility than their actions deserve.
 
I have for some time conducted a personal mission to fire back at the cabal of Daily Telegraph rag hacks who have carried out a sustained attack on our club . Suggesting their time is almost up and retribution is coming for their ill founded campaign of spite and malice seems to be touching a nerve as they have banned me from posting.
 
Oldham Exile said:
I know that a lot of us spend waaay too much time on the 2 threads - but at least that leads us to being knowledgeable to a fair degree and able to try and 'educate' others that do not have closed minds.

On that last point I would avoid trying to explain the realities to redscouse fans - they seem beyond the point of being able to reason with or even to have a thought that is not desperately biased.

Well if this is an example.............

xx.gif

Re: 115 charges for the scorched earth cheating bastards on & off the pitch​

« Reply #9400 on: Today at 02:17:26 pm »

I haven't read every page of this to see if others have said this, and there's not much point in speculating, but given the response from the recent case, and what we know about the 115 to 130 charges, they have lost the cases for compliance already, they are extremely non compliant from the moment information was first requested, to the point that that is not up for argument any more. That is at least 89 of the charges, so the vast majority. There's only the 7 profit and sustainability charges that have wiggle room that I can see. The 35 "Failure to cooperate with Premier League investigations from December 2018 - present" looks like a no hoper for them.

We are clearly doomed!!!!
Click to expand...
What a load of bollox
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
Before the decision Leterme claimed UEFA had concrete evidence but the Judges ruled they had no evidence at all!
Click to expand...
Leterme, the guy who got kicked out of the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance because he used foreign aid money to pay his tax lawyer.
 
Simon Stone
BBC Sport's chief football news reporter

Manchester United are confident they won’t get dragged into Manchester City’s ongoing battle with the Premier League over alleged financial breaches.

United chief executive Omar Berrada was criticised by Benjamin Mendy’s KC Nick De Marco this week for being ‘evasive at best’ when he answered questions about the former France full-back during an Employment Tribunal.

Berrada appeared at the tribunal after spending almost 13 years at City, latterly as Chief Football Operations officer of City Football Group, before moving to his new position at United in July.

Even City’s KC Sean Jones admitted on Tuesday ‘Mr Berrada was visibly unhappy at being asked questions he wasn’t expecting to be asked’.

It is not known whether Berrada has been or is expected to be called to give evidence during City’s more substantive battle with the Premier League.

He was employed by the club for all but the first two seasons covered by the case. There is no suggestion Berrada has done anything wrong and City deny all the charges.

Sources at Old Trafford have privately expressed confidence the club will not become embroiled in the case and the focus remains on driving United up the Premier League and cutting losses.
Click to expand...
 
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