PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Scaring Europe to Death said:
Was minding my own business on a Musical Christmas Cruise on the Rhine in Cologne this afternoon when suddenly two rags appeared in front of me discussing last night's defeat at Tottenham

One of them was a young chirpy cockney, but the other looked roughly my age (60) and was Scottish. He was also wearing a United Christmas Jumper.
I wasn't particularly bothered but then I heard the Scottish bloke refer to City as "Cheats"

Purely by coincidence I followed him into the toilets, but without even turning around he locked himself in the cubicle as I approached the urinals.

To the backdrop of Jingle Bells I launched into

JINGLE BELLS
COPPELL SMELLS
MACARI IS A QUEER

I then returned to the top deck and sat with my totally oblivious Mrs.
His face when he came out of the toilets was fucking brilliant. Trying to look aggressive but he hadn't a fucking clue who it was.
Shouldn't laugh but I haven't stopped
Click to expand...
I recall..
Jingle bells
Stepney smells
Crerands on the beer
Nobby stiles has lost his teeth
Nited going to lose….

Fckin rags
 
Scaring Europe to Death said:
Was minding my own business on a Musical Christmas Cruise on the Rhine in Cologne this afternoon when suddenly two rags appeared in front of me discussing last night's defeat at Tottenham

One of them was a young chirpy cockney, but the other looked roughly my age (60) and was Scottish. He was also wearing a United Christmas Jumper.
I wasn't particularly bothered but then I heard the Scottish bloke refer to City as "Cheats"

Purely by coincidence I followed him into the toilets, but without even turning around he locked himself in the cubicle as I approached the urinals.

To the backdrop of Jingle Bells I launched into

JINGLE BELLS
COPPELL SMELLS
MACARI IS A QUEER

I then returned to the top deck and sat with my totally oblivious Mrs.
His face when he came out of the toilets was fucking brilliant. Trying to look aggressive but he hadn't a fucking clue who it was.
Shouldn't laugh but I haven't stopped
Click to expand...

My man.
 
Scottish Cityzen said:
It’s hardly arrogant, and Stefan puts a huge amount of effort into keeping the folk who have little knowledge and/or understanding of the legalities / processes / rules etc (myself included).

He is mega patient and answers virtually all questions asked of him.

Fanchester came back to a very civil reply spouting (even to my untrained eye) what seemed to be a lot of nonsense, and has been called out for it.

If you are going to argue with an expert in a field always best to do some level of research if you enter a ‘debate’ with them.

Some will see that as rude or arrogant, while most will see it as simply the culture of the forum - chat shit then be prepared to be called out for it.
Click to expand...

There are two legal teams who have spent months debating the nuances. Despite Stefan's expertise it isn't the only view in town.

City hold one belief, others for a variety of reasons hold a different belief.
The point about the 6 year limitation was because some folks have just assumed their own 6 year starting point and deemed anything beyond the last years to be out of the equation. However that 6 year period is open to interpretation regarding the starting point.

At least one the legal teams involved will lose 50% or more of their arguments. Experts each.
 
FanchesterCity said:
There are two legal teams who have spent months debating the nuances. Despite Stefan's expertise it isn't the only view in town.

City hold one belief, others for a variety of reasons hold a different belief.
The point about the 6 year limitation was because some folks have just assumed their own 6 year starting point and deemed anything beyond the last years to be out of the equation. However that 6 year period is open to interpretation regarding the starting point.

At least one the legal teams involved will lose 50% or more of their arguments. Experts each.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure he was arguing that other people don't have a different view, it was more that your view came from a place of being uneducated. Whilst others may well be qualified to comment on this, are you one of those people?
 
WRicko said:
What’s your point
Click to expand...
!q
FanchesterCity said:
There are two legal teams who have spent months debating the nuances. Despite Stefan's expertise it isn't the only view in town.

City hold one belief, others for a variety of reasons hold a different belief.
The point about the 6 year limitation was because some folks have just assumed their own 6 year starting point and deemed anything beyond the last years to be out of the equation. However that 6 year period is open to interpretation regarding the starting point.

At least one the legal teams involved will lose 50% or more of their arguments. Experts each.
Click to expand...
Dunning and kruger appear to be missing their research specimen
 
FanchesterCity said:
There are two legal teams who have spent months debating the nuances. Despite Stefan's expertise it isn't the only view in town.

City hold one belief, others for a variety of reasons hold a different belief.
The point about the 6 year limitation was because some folks have just assumed their own 6 year starting point and deemed anything beyond the last years to be out of the equation. However that 6 year period is open to interpretation regarding the starting point.

At least one the legal teams involved will lose 50% or more of their arguments. Experts each.
Click to expand...
Like I said, I have no legal or financial knowledge to be making significant claims on this matter.

Everyone here is fully sighted on Stefan’s credentials. He has proven to be consistent, fair and knowledgeable on this matter as I’m sure you are aware.

He does not routinely put down alternative opinion unless he knows / is of the belief that someone is going down the wrong path with their posts.

I don’t think he’s got anything wrong so far and tends to seek to be fair and impartial in simply interpreting likely applications of the rules, legal ramifications and how the process will work etc.

You have made assertions which may or may not be right. However, a proven and knowledgeable poster has challenged your assertions so on the balance of probabilities I’m siding with the guy who’s proved his mettle over the last couple of years.
 
Newman Noggs said:
Here's an example of how this shit impinges on normal life. I'm in a walking football club in the Midlands. Supporters of West Ham, villa, Southampton, wolves, Coventry and, of course, united, liverpool, spurs and arse.

A few weeks ago a liverpool supporter posted some shit about us cheating. I ignored it until the pile-on started when I just said "please fuck off with this shit". Well, of course, the scouser was all offended and I got a load of shit for being over sensitive. Anyway, it blows over.

Last night was the Christmas curry. I'm minding my own business talking football, price of replica shirts, admission, the future of football all perfectly amicable. Then an Arsenal fan chimes in, "I'm really enjoying watching City crash and burn". Now what do you say to that ?

As it's the season of goodwill, I was very polite and pointed out that I'd seen us win four in a row, win a treble, score a record number of goals and win a record number of points, seen Aguero, Silva, De Bruyne and Rodri at their peak, I can die happy. He then came out with a comment about cheating at which point I told him to fuck right off and it very nearly came to blows. It cast a cloud over the whole evening.

I should point out that not once did that bloke ever engage me in conversation to say something about the quality of football we were playing in our pomp, nor any word of praise. They are emboldened to think their opinion matters by the relentless negative press coverage.
Click to expand...

You're not overly sensitive at all. Being a City fan can be socially very difficultin certain situationsand particularly outside Manchester. I had a similar experience at a Walking Football club in North Derbyshire. Every week I got a snide comment about City like "Do you think you'll get away with" and/or racist comments about our owners and players, or self-righteous nonsense about the charges. Just about every single week, something. I dealt with it as calmly as I could until some Chesterfield Rag interrupted a bit of jokey good natured back n forth between me and a Chesterfield supporting mate with false accusations suggesting City to be "corrupt" and very personal, nasty remarks to me when I challenged him. I'd never been referred to as "trash" before in my 59 years. When I later pointed out the good City's owners have done he said "Have you seen your owners?". You can draw your own conclusions from that. He got progressively nasty, abusive and threatening and I ended up leaving because the so-called "committee" did nothing about it. They effectively turned a blind eye, and even tried to blame me when I took exception to it. I never hit anyone or threatened anyone. I've joined two better kickabouts where I don't get any of that shit from Derby and Forest or other fans there. Tellingly there are no red cartel fans there.

The abuse happens elsewhere. I can be walking down the street in a City top and all sorts of "cheats" stuff is shouted. The dirty looks I ignore.

I get it at my daughter's football from completely ignorant people who have swallowed the media lies. Like others have said, ask them what the charges are, and they can't tell you. The worst are the rags, Liverpool and Arsenal fans but others do pile on. Never had shit from Derby, Forest, Chesterfield and Blades fans and most Owls I know bar one arsehole.
 
Last edited:
Newman Noggs said:
Here's an example of how this shit impinges on normal life. I'm in a walking football club in the Midlands. Supporters of West Ham, villa, Southampton, wolves, Coventry and, of course, united, liverpool, spurs and arse.

A few weeks ago a liverpool supporter posted some shit about us cheating. I ignored it until the pile-on started when I just said "please fuck off with this shit". Well, of course, the scouser was all offended and I got a load of shit for being over sensitive. Anyway, it blows over.

Last night was the Christmas curry. I'm minding my own business talking football, price of replica shirts, admission, the future of football all perfectly amicable. Then an Arsenal fan chimes in, "I'm really enjoying watching City crash and burn". Now what do you say to that ?

As it's the season of goodwill, I was very polite and pointed out that I'd seen us win four in a row, win a treble, score a record number of goals and win a record number of points, seen Aguero, Silva, De Bruyne and Rodri at their peak, I can die happy. He then came out with a comment about cheating at which point I told him to fuck right off and it very nearly came to blows. It cast a cloud over the whole evening.

I should point out that not once did that bloke ever engage me in conversation to say something about the quality of football we were playing in our pomp, nor any word of praise. They are emboldened to think their opinion matters by the relentless negative press coverage.
Click to expand...
You had the chance to say to the daft gooner, “for all our crashing and burning, we’re just 3 points behind you lot”
 
Bodicoteblue said:
Looking foreword the Xmas in n. London with a family of arsenal fans and an extended family of spurs fans.
Thanks to all on here who have provided facts and figures for the mounting of a serious attack on them all.
I may be outnumbered but I will not be beaten.
Merry Xmas all.
Click to expand...
Like I said in a earlier post, asked them why haven't they been relegated and say they was in the bottom 2, asked if any money was handed over in brown bags
 
bluestevei said:
Like I said in a earlier post, asked them why haven't they been relegated and say they was in the bottom 2, asked if any money was handed over in brown bags
Click to expand...
Ask them about "The Arsenal" of Highbury previously know as Woolwich Arsenal of Woolwich, elected to the 1st Div early 1900s despite being 5th in 2nd Div
 
FanchesterCity said:
There are two legal teams who have spent months debating the nuances. Despite Stefan's expertise it isn't the only view in town.

City hold one belief, others for a variety of reasons hold a different belief.
The point about the 6 year limitation was because some folks have just assumed their own 6 year starting point and deemed anything beyond the last years to be out of the equation. However that 6 year period is open to interpretation regarding the starting point.

At least one the legal teams involved will lose 50% or more of their arguments. Experts each.
Click to expand...
Ok. I'll bite even though this is exactly what I wanted to avoid.

You are welcome to other views but you shouldn't portray them as founded on a legal understanding. You started with a point that I agreed with in generality - "Sports organisations have exemptions that allow them to have members agree on different rules that CAN conflict with statute" and an inference that the PL did this in its rules.

I replied that the key here is that the PL rules have not sought to put in place rules that conflict with statute in respect of the statute of limitations. In fact, the PL state expressly they are to be construed in accordance with English law (obviously save where there is an agreement to exclude certain clauses (eg in Rule X appeals under the Arbitration Act 1996 - you can't appeal on a point of law under section 69 of the Arbitration Act (X.37)). So the starting point is English law which context dependent is the Limitation Act 1980 and the Arbitration Act 1996 with the relevant authorities sitting above those. It is all well trodden.

You then replied with various things including that "the 6 year limit for arbitration only applies to awards / judgments but does not apply to evidence." and "I think it's slightly wishful thinking to believe a time bar will prevail on most of the charges."

Both were not things I'd suggested and nor is the 6 year limit only applicable to awards or judgments (whatever that means).

I pointed out that I'd never suggested evidence was time barred - on the contrary, I have explained numerous times what a SoL means. In fact, I think one of the reasons the PL launched the case in Feb 2023 was because of this article https://www.independent.co.uk/sport...ster-city-ffp-image-right-deals-a7621641.html and the fact that it could have meant the Fordham was time barred in March 2023 on any basis.

I can't find your re-reply (seems deleted or I'm blocked from seeing) with more false information about what English law even means (it means all of English law as relevant to the particular matter), something about the Arbitration Act and something else wrong about when a limitation applies. Hence my reply.

As to your further reply, I've no idea how it fits with your earlier points. Of course, 2 sides will debate whether matters are time barred or not - but the problem with this point is that it contradicts your other points that SoL doesn't apply to the PL rules.

You've also suggested that something about City doing what everyone else was doing and the case will turn on whether they can show every other club was doing it. This is also wrong.
 
slbsn said:
Ok. I'll bite even though this is exactly what I wanted to avoid.

You are welcome to other views but you shouldn't portray them as founded on a legal understanding. You started with a point that I agreed with in generality - "Sports organisations have exemptions that allow them to have members agree on different rules that CAN conflict with statute."

I replied that the key here is that the PL rules have not sought to put in place rules that conflict with statute in respect of the statute of limitations. In fact, the PL state expressly they are to be construed in accordance with English law (obviously save where there is an agreement to exclude certain clauses (eg in Rule X appeals under the Arbitration Act 1996 - you can't appeal on a point of law under section 69 of the Arbitration Act (X.37)). So the starting point is English law which context dependent is the Limitation Act 1980 and the Arbitration Act 1996 with the relevant authorities sitting above those. It is all well trodden.

You then replied with various things including that "the 6 year limit for arbitration only applies to awards / judgments but does not apply to evidence." and "I think it's slightly wishful thinking to believe a time bar will prevail on most of the charges."

Both were not things I'd suggested and nor is the 6 year limit only applicable to awards or judgments (whatever that means).

I pointed out that I'd never suggested evidence was time barred - on the contrary, I have explained numerous times what a SoL means. In fact, I think one of the reasons the PL launched the case in Feb 2023 was because of this article https://www.independent.co.uk/sport...ster-city-ffp-image-right-deals-a7621641.html and the fact that it could have meant the Fordham was time barred in March 2023 on any basis.

I can't find your re-reply (seems deleted or I'm blocked from seeing) with more false information about what English law even means (it means all of English law as relevant to the particular matter), something about the Arbitration Act and something else wrong about when a limitation applies. Hence my reply.

As to your further reply, I've no idea how it fits with your earlier points. Of course, 2 sides will debate whether matters are time barred or not - but the problem with this point is that it contradicts your other points that SoL doesn't apply to the PL rules.

You've also suggested that something about City doing what everyone else was doing and the case will turn on whether they can show every other club was doing it. This is also wrong.
Click to expand...
Fucking love this forum me
 
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