PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

KS55 said:
You really should not be giving credence to spurious claims from Pinto. As both myself and Stefan have pointed out, he would not have saved the best till last and anything he has produced is by definition less cogent than stuff which was rejected at CAS.
Click to expand...
The problem is that neither you, I, nor Stefan knows if there is better evidence among the material that didn’t end up with Der Spiegel. Pinto was active after the articles were published. And as I’ve written before on this subject, the question remains whether it was actually Pinto who hacked City or if someone else used him to release the material.
 
halfcenturyup said:
The scheme wasn't concealed, but there is talk in the leaked information about ADUG reimbursing Fordham (or Fordham's owners) for losses they incurred under the scheme. If those reimbursements weren't passed down to the club then there could be an argument that those expenses were excluded from the club's accounts to improve the club's FFP position, and were concealed from the PL until the information was leaked.

Speculation, but it may not be time limited in those circumstances.
Click to expand...
Understood. Cheers
 
Keith Moon said:
In a civil case, it is generally possible to request files or documents from a governmental body, so it’s possible that the authorities provided additional information to the Premier League. What happened in Portugal is that the authorities received the data but then kept it under wraps, which is why they also chose to share the data with other countries.
Click to expand...
Our chairman who is an eminent businessman has stated he has irrefutable evidence that we are innocent
The main word is that paragraph is businessman
He knows what we have been charged with and what we have done
If he suspected we were in trouble he would do what businessmen do
Broker a deal not declare our innocence publicly
Simple really
 
Keith Moon said:
The problem is that neither you, I, nor Stefan knows if there is better evidence among the material that didn’t end up with Der Spiegel. Pinto was active after the articles were published. And as I’ve written before on this subject, the question remains whether it was actually Pinto who hacked City or if someone else used him to release the material.
Click to expand...
You're either Nick Harris or Miguel Delaney. I can't make up my mind which yet but I still claim my £5.
 
Keith Moon said:
The problem is that neither you, I, nor Stefan knows if there is better evidence among the material that didn’t end up with Der Spiegel. Pinto was active after the articles were published. And as I’ve written before on this subject, the question remains whether it was actually Pinto who hacked City or if someone else used him to release the material.
Click to expand...
Your argument presupposes that there is evidence, which you cannot know. There was none in his original leak. Why should there be some now?
12 times CAS told you “There is no evidence that….” A pretty damning comment on Pinto. Stop assuming there is now evidence in his material….or do you think CAS was wrong?!
 
Last edited:
Keith Moon said:
Do you know what we are accused of or if there is any new evidence regarding the 54 charges of Misrepresentation of Financial Information?

Do you know if the Premier League has new evidence that they either uncovered themselves or obtained from FootyLeaks, Pinto, or the EIC?

Do you know if we actually funded the sponsorships?
Click to expand...
For fucking hells sake shut up
 
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