PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[StillBluessinceHydeRoad]

"their evidence was nothing more that a series of Jamie Jackson's questions, jokes from players and managers and articles from English newspapers (or emails from German comics)."

I hate to put a downer on what you say but sadly that can't be the case, this has gone on far too long and at enormous cost for both sides and caused enormous damage to us and the PL.

I do think we are innocent but the PL must have something to go this far.

Both sides needs this over ASAP.

And if what you say is remotely true the PL and Co will have their butts sued for 100s of millions from our execs, and they will be paying for our team rebuilds for the next century.

You're not putting a downer on what I say; the point I'm making is that the PL may have some documentary evidence which appears to conflict with our BUT what seems to upset some blues are jibes, newspaper articles and even questions in pressers and the members of the IC won't even bother with such nonsense and neither will either legal team. The media hasn't liked us, doesn't like us and may well never like us - but it doesn't matter at all. As for Slot he seemed good humoured and cracked a joke. That's hardly a crime against humanity. And if it was a bad humoured jibe - so what.

 

[I'msingingingtheblues]

The old City pessimism in me of yesteryear (although in reality it's never really left my psyche) thinks that maybe the players' heads are down and Pep is grumpy, not just because of the run of poor form, but because they've heard how the case is going and they're preparing for the fallout. Obviously, I do hope I'm wrong - but ......... :-(

 

[KS55]

I understand your view but we lose this case on the major parts we are royaly *ucked, they will be queing up to sue us.

I am certain 99.9% we are innocent but I do think the club have been reluctant to hit the transfer market because of the PR backlash until we are cleared.

That now has changed because of the slump we are in, I would expect a show of power and ruthlessness in the next two windows.

The rules on spending will limit what can be done.

 

[KS55]

Don’t disagree with the points you’re making but as City supporters, down the years we have always been able to laugh at ourselves, we shouldn’t lose that. I had no issue with Slot’s joke, I had no issue with them singing “sacked in the morning” - it was all the funnier because we, and they, knew it wasn’t going to happen.
….and if the situations were reversed would City fans not have been singing the same thing?

“That coat comes from Matallan”

 

[Keeper!]

You're not putting a downer on what I say; the point I'm making is that the PL may have some documentary evidence which appears to conflict with our BUT what seems to upset some blues are jibes, newspaper articles and even questions in pressers and the members of the IC won't even bother with such nonsense and neither will either legal team. The media hasn't liked us, doesn't like us and may well never like us - but it doesn't matter at all. As for Slot he seemed good humoured and cracked a joke. That's hardly a crime against humanity. And if it was a bad humoured jibe - so what.

A tribunal would not last 10 weeks if the evidence against was as you say.

 

[Keeper!]

The rules on spending will limit what can be done.

Will it, we have banked so much cash the last few years we will have no such issues.

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

I don't remember Jimmy singing that. It's not very catchy is it?!? :)

Defo needs more. They can’t leave it this way!

 

[i kne albert davy]

The rules on spending will limit what can be done.

Fortunately we're decently in profit and when Etihad deal goes through the refreshing of the team shouldn't be that difficult hopefully. Unless they bring in a new law that any team in a blue kit or any other colour than red can't spend more than a tenner.

 

[KS55]

Fortunately we're decently in profit and when Etihad deal goes through the refreshing of the team shouldn't be that difficult hopefully. Unless they bring in a new law that any team in a blue kit or any other colour than red can't spend more than a tenner.

The anchoring starts next year. What we can spend will be determined by the tv money earned by the poorest club, iirc.

 

[Lord Blue]

Come on mate, if your mates are local, finishing at 6pm is no excuse for sacking this match off.

I'll be starting my 200 mile round trip shortly, sacking it off never crossed my mind.

Tell 'em to get their arses to the Etihad and cheer the boys on.

Thats how i feel when i hear this sort of stuff too.
Although mine is closer to a 500 mile round trip.
Midweek games require me to take time off work.

 

[KS55]

Will it, we have banked so much cash the last few years we will have no such issues.

Profits are modest. Almost all that cash we have banked has gone out in purchases and wages.

 

[Lord Blue]

Fortunately we're decently in profit and when Etihad deal goes through the refreshing of the team shouldn't be that difficult hopefully. Unless they bring in a new law that any team in a blue kit or any other colour than red can't spend more than a tenner.

Simple we just bring out a red 4th strip then don't wear it.

or, preferably the red and black stripes

 

[Bluesince1979]

Was that from some mad b-side?

Did you read it in a camp, high pitched scottish voice though?

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

Did you read it in a camp, high pitched scottish voice though?

That’s how I wrote it…

 

[Bluesince1979]

That’s how I wrote it…

Whilst wiggling your bum?

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

Whilst wiggling your bum?

I was looking wistfully at a keyboard playing vicar..

 

[StillBluessinceHydeRoad]

On the one hand, I understand the point of view that the PL must have more evidence than the few emails that were available at CAS. For example, they have presumably had access to all relevant email records and all relevant accounting records which may well have raised considerably more questions. I think it's undeniable they will have more information on which to build their case.

On the other hand, I ask myself exactly what sufficiently cogent evidence they could possibly have that proves on the balance of probabilities that, for example, Mansour provided money to Etihad to pay their sponsorship. There is nothing in the club's accounting or other records that could prove that to the required standard, all the evidence they would need is at third parties. And there has been no indication at all of a third-party whistle-blower or incriminating supporting evidence from third parties.

So, as at CAS, it's most likely a question of balancing circumstantial evidence (things said in emails, things said in presentations, etc) against witness testimony and accounting evidence from the third parties.

I was struggling to see how the PL can clear that hurdle 18 months ago, and I am still struggling.

I must point out that Keeper did not quote me in full - I said that I would be not only astonished but delighted if the PL's evidence was as flimsy as newspaper articles, questions in pressers and jokes by rival players and managers. This would mean we really had no case to answer. The point being that Blues don't need to get upset over such nonsense because it cannot affect the case at all.

What will affect the case is hard evidence. Our evidence will, I suspect, be based on our audited accounts and statements from the personalities involved in matters relating to club revenue. I don't know what evidence the PL has but it may involve some emails hacked/stolen/leaked, or, as UEFA's at CAS, only copies published by the likes of Der Spiegel, which appear to suggest something "irregular". The judgement may boil down to which evidence seems more credible -theirs or ours.

Without any knowledge of the evidence I feel that our case is very strong. I am, of course, beginning with the assumption that we have done nothing wrong. CAS found exactly that and found only that had we cooperated fully earlier CAS need never have been involved. Our accounts were full and complete, it was impossible not to accept the evidence provided by all those involved and we provided a credible account of events which had been interpreted in a sinister light by the emails presented by UEFA. So the PL seems to have to show clear evidence which undermines the credibility of our accounts, shows strong evidence that our witnesses are not credible and that some of their testimony is inaccurate and untruthful. As has been said many times, that is one hell of a task.

 

[travelman]

Will it, we have banked so much cash the last few years we will have no such issues.

Not sure you are right with that. I think if we are found guilty we will be forced through the trap door with no way back. We will effectively be like Newcastle.

 

[Uncle Wally One Ball]

With the sacked in the morning chant I don’t have an issue.
Everyone does it and Peps reaction was great.

However, when the subject matter joked about will put people’s jobs at risk and potentially put our clubs future at risk I’m not too happy.
Especially coming from the manager of a club which has pushed for these charges and used their former players, managers and fans in the media to portray our club as all that is evil within football. To me It doesn’t feel like a joke it feels more sinister than that.

But look that’s just my view and I’m just sick of the constant 115 allegations. So maybe I need thicker skin and a sense of humour.

Sounds like

 

[mexico1970]

Not sure you are right with that. I think if we are found guilty we will be forced through the trap door with no way back. We will effectively be like Newcastle.

If that happens and that's a big if, football will die in this country because even if the baying mob of opposing fans and media so desperately want that they will never ever really trust the process again.

When the rags win the title twice on the trot murmurings of cabal will kill the product IMHO.