PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Chappie said:
How do you get your message across when the original drivers of the campaign are the cartel, who appear to the have both the written media and national broadcasters in this country in their back pocket.
Click to expand...
Graffiti all their grounds and PLs offices.

' 115 INNOCENT '.

Simples !!
 
Colin Bells Boots said:
I personally will we be wearing a rather smug and " told you " expression when facing the cunts who were so happy to mention our guilt and doubt that our income stream could possibly be real and bettering the rag/dippers.eg Gary chuckle and Jamie Spits at kids.

Quietly wearing my " fuck you " expression which will hurt their petty jealous little minds, far more than bragging or boasting. That afterall is what those cunts have done in the past, gloated and boasted.

If the club decide to put out a dignified statement of our proven integrity and innocence, the cunts will only deny it and winge like bitches, so I doubt the point personally.

Smugness is your friend in these situations .............imho.
Click to expand...
I'll be saying I told you so to soooo many people. Well I would but, we know how it works, no interest in football again, disappear off the face of the earth etc.
 
richards30 said:
Even if we did succeed the damage is done isnt it? We will never shake the cheat tag unfortunately
Click to expand...
This is not news. You can choose to let it affect you or not. It’s up to you. Personally I could not care less. Each blue chooses their own path.

The club itself will want to win so they can start looking to the future rather than the past. “What will the neighbours think” won’t be a concern.
 
Cobwebcat said:
This is not news. You can choose to let it affect you or not. It’s up to you. Personally I could not care less. Each blue chooses their own path.

The club itself will want to win so they can start looking to the future rather than the past. “What will the neighbours think” won’t be a concern.
Click to expand...
Boring !!

Storm the BBC @ SQs ,disrupt the Ten o'clock News & Match of the Day.

Smoke the place out & put them off the air.

These bastards are acting in collusion and support of the red yank cabal who have set out to destroy us.

REVENGE !!
 
Gone for a Burton said:
Boring !!

Storm the BBC @ SQs ,disrupt the Ten o'clock News & Match of the Day.

Smoke the place out & put them off the air.

These bastards are acting in collusion and support of the red yank cabal who have set out to destroy us.

REVENGE !!
Click to expand...

Removing the BBC en masse would be a bonus for many licence payers, but seeing as they always act like cunts as far as we are concerned, a public humiliation for Stone and Roan would be a good start.
 
Gone for a Burton said:
How are we going to celebrate our 115 victory ??

Pyrotechnics and smokie flares in front of CB reception.

Street party at MARY Ds and the pubs in town.

Cavalcade of cars round Deansgate.

We must put ourselves front and centre of this victory.....our biggest and most important of recent years !!
Click to expand...

We should treat it with the contempt it deserves.

Issue a to the point club statement then crack on with building the next Pep team.
 
Pingu the Penguin said:
If we are cleared of everything (unlikely I suspect, they will push something on us) then I am genuinely interested in how the media will react.
Click to expand...
They'll find whatever scrap they can to discredit it

For example, if every single accusation is cleared, but there's one throwaway line on one single unimportant accusation that says "The panel appreciates why the PL felt this was dubious", then every journalist will report how even the panel knew we were up to no good
 
FanchesterCity said:
But even English law has exemptions and caveats. The 6 year limit for arbitration only applies to awards / judgments but does not apply to evidence. So evidence gathered or related to a time period beyond the 6 years can still be used if it can be demonstrated as relevant to events within the 6 year limit.

The PL will most likely also be arguing that City hindered their investigations so the PL only became aware of breaches quite some time after they had occurred (and the discovery was within 6 years).

I think it's slightly wishful thinking to believe a time bar will prevail on most of the charges. Furthermore, if that were to be the case it would only cement the belief that we got off on a technicality. In many ways, if the club is innocent we don't want any time bar, we want a categorical declaration of innocence.
Sadly I think the PL have backed themselves into a corner where they need to come out with at least some win (or verdict they can present as a win). That sucks and suggests their primary goal IS to have City punished. Their prime goal should always be to reach the correct decision based on the facts and fair judgment and adapt the rules fairly and transparently in the true interests of the sport, not specific clubs.

I suspect we have been 'creative' in some of our practices, in the same way most clubs are. This is natural behaviour for any business... how to maximise benefits by being creative but within the rules. Sadly, I think some of the rules will be interpreted in ways that make City look bad. The 115+ charges are really multiple instances of certain allegations, but even so, it's hard to imagine where every single interpretation of the rules goes in our favour. The question then will be 'if City breached rule x, due to the interpretation being rules as...' then how many others now fall into breach?

It's one thing to have 115 breaches thrown at us, it's quite another to make some of those breaches stick without it sticking forgotten clubs too.
Click to expand...
Nobody suggested that evidence is time barred. I’ve explained that numerous times over the years. This is not a carve out or exemption.

Nor did I suggest anything will be time barred merely that English law SoL will apply with all its well trodden nuance and without special PL carve outs.
 
Agueroooooooooooo said:
Fraud=criminal=beyond reasonable doubt

Civil=balance of probabilities

www.bljsolicitors.co.uk

The Key Differences Between Criminal And Civil Law - Bell Lamb & Joynson Solicitors

Whether you need to know about criminal law or civil law right now, or you just want to gain an understanding for the future, we’ve got you covered.
www.bljsolicitors.co.uk www.bljsolicitors.co.uk
Click to expand...
It’s a civil case and balance of probabilities.

You can read more here. https://stefanborson.substack.com/p/conspiracy-theories-and-innuendo

There are many practice notes if you are really interested https://www.edwincoe.com/civil-fraud-claims-misjudging-the-scales/

Recent Insights | White & Case LLP

www.whitecase.com www.whitecase.com
 
ayrshire_blue said:


I don't know if this means anything at all in relation to our case, it might be irrelevant, but just felt it's worth adding as he chaired our hearing which is currently awaiting a verdict.

Edit - it was a five year tenure which is ending in the new year. So nothing out of the ordinary. Still worthy of adding to discussion, perhaps.
Click to expand...

I doubt he chaired the hearing btw
 
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