PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

St Helens Blue (Exiled) said:
Magic Hat may aswell have posted "look at me everyone"

The guy (who I reckon is about 20) is seriously deranged
Click to expand...

The one thing I will say is that he's very clearly not a journalist of any kind. Including Nick Harris.

The writing level is Key Stage 3. The posts are incoherent, i read the latest one this morning and it's just a bad tweet, he'd get much more engagement, and have gotten across the information better if he'd just said "It's all just posturing".

If you're selling anti-Man City tweets and theories and you've only got 18k followers after 3/4 years, you're really bad at twitter.
 
Last edited:
Family Man Ashton said:
Breach of Contractual Integrity. Severe Reputation Damage. Significant Change in Professional Conditions. Economic Instability.
Click to expand...
Big words which mean absolute squat in terms of a contract and its enforceability. The contract is to play football for a football club, unless there is specific breaches alluding to relegation etc then none of what you say could come close to being enforced, i didnt want to bite but you are becoming so boring i felt i must now red cafe is that way so trot off back there.
 
Family Man Ashton said:
Breach of Contractual Integrity. Severe Reputation Damage. Significant Change in Professional Conditions. Economic Instability.
Click to expand...
Not sure why you’ve capitalised all those terms.

Those things can only be enforced if they are expressly provided for in the conrtacts, and you haven’t had sight.

I would say as a general proposition a contract can only be void for fraud if the fraud specifically relates to the formation (or subsequent variation) of the contract i.e. City knew they were going to be punished to an extent that was material and dishonestly represented otherwise to the other contacting party, namely the player.

Just because a company is held to have acted fraudulently in a civil (or even criminal) court or tribunal it doesn’t automatically vitiate every contract it is subject to. That would be an utterly preposterous and unworkable state of affairs.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Not sure why you’ve capitalised all those terms.

Those things can only be enforced if they are expressly provided for in the contact, and you haven’t had sight of the material contracts.

I would say as a general proposition a contract can only be void for fraud if the fraud specifically relates to the formation (or subsequent variation) of the contact i.e. City knew they were going to be punished to an extent that was material and dishonestly represented otherwise to the other contacting party, namely the player.

Just because a company is held to have acted fraudulently in a civil (or even criminal) court or tribunal it doesn’t vitiate every contract it is subject to. That would be an utterly preposterous and unworkable state of affairs.
Click to expand...
well put my friend now can we all stop feeding the rag and maybe he will toddle off.
 
pudge said:
I think the non-cooperation charge is unavoidable even if the charges are completely unfounded
Click to expand...
I am hoping the club view it differently this time. Non cooperation with charges that are corrupt might well be something we decide to fight this time, once bitten and all that
 
St Helens Blue (Exiled) said:
He denied being Harris but looking at his time line I think he is a bedroom warrior - probably in his early 20's
Click to expand...
It seems likely that the whole "Magic Hat" thing is just a giant wind-up which also generates a bit of income. His comments today about the UAE are really off the scale. They come across as a parody. I think they are more damaging to those who criticise City than the club itself. We must be in the end game with this farce now. The comments by the Sports Minister yesterday about a small group of clubs "promoting untruths" about the independent regulator won't do us any harm either.
 
Family Man Ashton said:
So, in the real world, if a club like Juventus gets relegated because of match-fixing, how can they force their players to stay?
Click to expand...
M8, I aint talking to you until I know who or what you are. Nothing against you but I'v seen quite a few of your posts and they are quite on the unreasonably negative side (Not all obvs) about City. I dont think you're a rag but you seem to have not much love (Nevermind blind love), or trust for your club.
 
domalino said:
The one thing I will say is that he's very clearly not a journalist of any kind. Including Nick Harris.

The writing level is Key Stage 3. The posts are incoherent, i read the latest one this morning and it's just a bad tweet, he'd get much more engagement, and have gotten across the information better if he'd just said "It's all just posturing".
Click to expand...
Manchester Evening News level, then.
 
ayrshire_blue said:
Rangers are also a strange comparison. Without knowledge of exactly what happened with the rest of the clubs which FMA has mentioned, Rangers as a club went out of business and ceased to exist so of course their (former) players could "leave" for free as they were no longer attached to any club, ipso facto. You can't lump together a bunch of clubs where different things happened to each which resulted in different consequences.

(@gordondaviesmoustache , did I do it right btw??)
Click to expand...
No, you didn’t call anyone a ****.
 
With all the transfer activity and huge contract extension MCFC basically saying fuck you to the Red Cartel and Masters .
***Laymans terms for all the thick as fuck Red cartel cunts looking in ***
CTID
 
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