PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Centurions said:
I can't even imagine trying to read the MEN without an Ad blocker of some description. I use Surfshark VPN which includes their own version called Cleanweb which reduces the MEN to just the article itself plus the comments, can't recommend it enough.
Click to expand...
i'm sure some browsers used to come with a right click option that had that effect, but buggered if i can remember
 
Damocles said:
This soft signal stuff is getting people carried away.

There is no evidence either way. We are as likely to get found guilty with a relegation than to be clearer, possibly more likely. You're setting yourselves up for a massive fall.

Stefan gave a very vague piece of information which he constantly qualified as something that isn't indicative of much at all, and now the rest of you are reading articles like they're tea leaves. It has to stop before you all turn into scousers.
Click to expand...

Yeah!!!

trouble-upset.gif
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
As Stefan says, yes it would. Unless the PL has evidence that we're not aware of, the related party question is potentially the only chink in our armour as far as the AD sponsorships are concerned. But it's a very, very small one.

And for the cynic in me, it's yet more corroboration that this isn't about the PL acting independently of its shareholders, nobly trying to ensure there is a level financial playing field in accordance with its rules and regulations. It's about our competitors trying to nail us in any small way they can.
Click to expand...
Since the Leicester reversal it seems the legal yes men have been replaced by their legal first team.
Years of control over targeted rule making has made the case for the city side leaving traceability everywhere that they still think can be brushed under the carpet.
Certainly a compliant media helps but it does seem that the PL is relying too much on the media reporting a public vote of guilty to prove that black is white.
Whether City have been 100 percent careful to obey only the badly written biased rules is debatable but overall I think we should not worry too much.
Years of trying to attack the city business plan and mainly failing must make a trend analysis obvious (fingers crossed).
 
calumdown said:
interesting.
you will do what you want

and yet you tell everyone else to stop doing what they want.
Click to expand...
It's funny that he had a pop at me the other week for posting negative "info" - albeit that it was probably bollocks - and now he's having a pop because I posted an article that, for a change for our media, is positive. While he's right that none of us have the full inside track that also applies to him too, yet he's telling us that we're more likely to be found guilty than not. Which - unless he's been tipped off about the verdict - is based on absolutely fuck-all.
 
M18CTID said:
It's funny that he had a pop at me the other week for posting negative "info" - albeit that it was probably bollocks - and now he's having a pop because I posted an article that, for a change for our media, is positive. While he's right that none of us have the full inside track that also applies to him too, yet he's telling us that we're more likely to be found guilty than not. Which - unless he's been tipped off about the verdict - is based on absolutely fuck-all.
Click to expand...
Perhaps he's basing it on how it went with the UEFA case?
 
M
SilverFox2 said:
Since the Leicester reversal it seems the legal yes men have been replaced by their legal first team.
Years of control over targeted rule making has made the case for the city side leaving traceability everywhere that they still think can be brushed under the carpet.
Certainly a compliant media helps but it does seem that the PL is relying too much on the media reporting a public vote of guilty to prove that black is white.
Whether City have been 100 percent careful to obey only the badly written biased rules is debatable but overall I think we should not worry too much.
Years of trying to attack the city business plan and mainly failing must make a trend analysis obvious (fingers crossed).
Click to expand...
That bit in bold, I really like.
I might borrow that for the next time I’m educating my brother in law. (Liverpool fan)
 
Centurions said:
Perhaps he's basing it on how it went with the UEFA case?
Click to expand...
I think there's a subtle difference in that UEFA's panel was clearly biased - and to give them a tiny bit of credit they perhaps had not much alternative but to find us guilty when we stopped co-operating - whereas the panel in this case ought to be truly independent to the point that it could be argued that they're equivalent to CAS
 
Last edited:
slbsn said:
I think they are exactly what I said they were - evidence and information that is inconsistent with a worst case outcome. Personally do not agree they are all nothing - a £400m stadium expenditure, a clean audit in December (when not required until March) and a few other things are exactly what people should take them for, not conclusive but not nothing either. Masters giving an interview wouldn’t be at that level if that’s what you mean.
Click to expand...

So cautious optimism then :)
 
jrb said:
You'll have to scroll through add after add to read the full article, if you can be arsed?

www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk

Premier League CEO Masters scores huge own goal with two Man City blunders

Premier League CEO Richard Masters has given a wide-ranging interview that conveniently avoided the most important issue he faces this year: Manchester City.
www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk
Click to expand...
"A verdict is expected this year, likely in the first months of 2025, which will determine if City have systematically cheated and broken financial rules, or if the Premier League have launched the significant allegations without sufficient evidence to prove it"

So, what that paragraph is implying is that either we are guilty as proved or guilty but not proved!
 
Last edited:
Fiftyyearsandcounting said:
"A verdict is expected this year, likely in the first months of 2025, which will determine if City have systematically cheated and broken financial rules, or if the Premier League have launched the significant allegations without sufficient evidence to prove it"

So, what that paragraph is implying is that either we are guilt as proved or guilty but not proved!
Click to expand...
hmmm, can't really see any other way to read that other than as you say.

i wonder if that phrasing is the norm in legal cases. sure a few here can comment?
 
M18CTID said:
I think there's a subtle difference in that UEFA's panel was clearly biased - and to give them a tiny bit of credit they perhaps had not much alternative but to find us guilty when we stopped co-operating - whereas the panel in this case ought to be truly independent to the point that it could be argued that they're equivalent to CAS
Click to expand...
We can only hope...
 
Damocles said:
This soft signal stuff is getting people carried away.

There is no evidence either way. We are as likely to get found guilty with a relegation than to be clearer, possibly more likely. You're setting yourselves up for a massive fall.

Stefan gave a very vague piece of information which he constantly qualified as something that isn't indicative of much at all, and now the rest of you are reading articles like they're tea leaves. It has to stop before you all turn into scousers.
Click to expand...
Nah it's ok to be positive, also Stefan did say that's it's evidence inconsistent with a negative outcome, so I'd read a positive into that.
 
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