PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

I’m afraid much of our support, grown entitled by success, and deluded into thinking it was going to be perpetual, are simply not mentally equipped to deal with a significant downturn in the club’s fortunes which includes dealing with the perfectly understandable reaction from certain quarters outside the club to our recent misfortune.
Well at least this season can be the proverbial ice bath for them then!

PS: my 13 year old daughter is now at the stage of crying upon each conceded goal. I have tried to explain how football usually works
 
I would - and have - used my private email on company business etc - it might be “bad practice” but it’s not uncommon. It’s usually for convenience and under particular circumstances - and does not indicate or imply wrongdoing.
What that says to me is theres over the top security policies in place which causes the weaking of overall security of the business. If you ever feel the need to use insecure methods in business then the security team have failed massive and needs replacing
 
Well at least this season can be the proverbial ice bath for them then!

PS: my 13 year old daughter is now at the stage of crying upon each conceded goal. I have tried to explain how football usually works
My 17 year old daughter reminded me the other day that I had said to her a couple of years ago that - whilst I was of course glad that she sees CITY winning all the time, I feel she is missing out and she will never appreciate what we FOCs had to go through seeing (and expecting) CITY to lose all the time.

FFS - she thinks this is bad;-)
 
Last edited:
Well at least this season can be the proverbial ice bath for them then!

PS: my 13 year old daughter is now at the stage of crying upon each conceded goal. I have tried to explain how football usually works
I remember my lad at that age, who accompanied me to Villa Park on Saturday some twelve years later, started watching City with me at that age in 2011, and never saw us lose until the Wigan Cup Final in 2013. Talk about spoilt!
 
My point is you would not use a none City email address for city stuff unless you’re doing something wrong and expecting to be caught. It’s bad practice same as politicians and what’s apps etc

He was acting in his role as special advisor to AD executive affairs when sending the emails.
 
Hate to be one of those people but heard another positive soft signal (not transfer related) this morning. Seems to me that it would be incompatible with a finding of serious wrong doing at the club. I can't say anything specific but consistent with the other soft signals (being something in the background that would seem unlikely if a seriously negative outcome was coming from the case).
 
Hate to be one of those people but heard another positive soft signal (not transfer related) this morning. Seems to me that it would be incompatible with a finding of serious wrong doing at the club. I can't say anything specific but consistent with the other soft signals (being something in the background that would seem unlikely if a seriously negative outcome was coming from the case).

Do tell….
 
Inviting an allegation that I'm arrogant again, but the textbook is wrong if it does say that. Really is as simple as that. If you show me exactly what it says I can explain but there is only one standard of proof in civil cases: the balance of probabilities.

The more serious the allegation, the less likely it is to have occurred. But this does not mean that where a serious allegation is in issue, the standard of proof required is higher. It means only that the inherent probability or improbability of an event is itself a matter to be taken into account when weighing the probabilities and deciding whether, on balance, the event occurred see H (Minors) [1996] A.C. 563 at 586 per Lord Nicholls.

It is well discussed in this case https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/form...Bank+St+Petersburg+PJSC+v+Vitaly+Arkhangelsky

Here’s a snippet from the text back.

1735033776096.png
 
Hate to be one of those people but heard another positive soft signal (not transfer related) this morning. Seems to me that it would be incompatible with a finding of serious wrong doing at the club. I can't say anything specific but consistent with the other soft signals (being something in the background that would seem unlikely if a seriously negative outcome was coming from the case).
bloody hell you've done it now turkey cooking on hold while i read another 50 pages

merry christmas everyone x
 
Here’s a snippet from the text back.

View attachment 141231
S and M Carpets is wrong and not a key authority in 2024. Also burden is not the same as standard. Burden is who needs to prove the case. Standard is whether it is BoP or higher. In short, use the second para and ignore the Be aware box - it is oversimplifying the way the standard works on fraud. If really interested, although a different standard again (comfortable satisfaction) the City CAS case has some good discussion on the point - City did argue that comfortable satisfaction meant criminal standard. This was dismissed.
1735034426437.png
1735034500895.png
 
I would - and have - used my private email on company business etc - it might be “bad practice” but it’s not uncommon. It’s usually for convenience and under particular circumstances - and does not indicate or imply wrongdoing.
The bigger better the company and the more financial and personal details needed the more it will be considered bad practice. Especially for higher ups. I am sure city are above all this
 
Hate to be one of those people but heard another positive soft signal (not transfer related) this morning. Seems to me that it would be incompatible with a finding of serious wrong doing at the club. I can't say anything specific but consistent with the other soft signals (being something in the background that would seem unlikely if a seriously negative outcome was coming from the case).
Screenshot 2024-12-24 at 10.08.42.png
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top