PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Kirkstall Blue said:
Copied from X
The real Tolmie’s Hairdoo

A few 'expert' commentators now spinning fallback narratives this week. City always been supremely confident proving these charges are bogus. The Haaland deal, January spending, £400m stadium development, zero to do with the case or knowing the verdict. Media now hedging their bets and inferring City 'getting off' or a paltry fine.

At no stage during this orchestrated smear job, has one single outlet entertained City will (AGAIN) be ruled innocent of disguising sponsorship money on behalf of our owner. They know the verdict is now close and need to make sure the usual caveats are in place, having spent the last five years insisting we will be bombed out of existence.

As for the expected lazy shit that City will have bribed their way out of trouble, let's point you towards the £120m legal fees the Club and the Premier League has spent just to pretend the lawyers on both sides were watching daytime TV for 12 weeks

Just copied TH on X defending our club as usual as we are constantly under scrutiny by the media
Click to expand...
I always ask the know-nowts ...surely we would have bribed them at the start and saved all this shit? Tumbleweed, as usual
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
I’ve thought about this further and it gets worse.

The club has made its position clear. They expressly deny any wrongdoing, which plainly means an absence of any fraudulent activity whatsoever. That is City’s unequivocal stated position.

So an organisation that turns over 700 million quid, that has been accused of fraud by its regulatory body, unequivocally states that the allegations are entirely false. And they have ‘irrefutable’ proof of this. Strident words.

And yet there has been zero input from the press about the implications if this is correct, which is plainly seismic. If the club’s assertion is correct then they have been accused of something of which they have not done. That’s a huge deal by any objective measure.

Think of the Wagatha Christie trial. Imagine one of the statements of case, say Vardy, being forensically examined by the press and the implications for all parties if the court found favour with her case being set out in great detail. And then the only scenario being presented for Rooney was one where her defence didn’t get over the line because there wasn’t enough proof, without any reference to what it would mean if her stated case was upheld by the court.

That’s actually what we are dealing with here. The club’s defence is that the charges are bollocks and yet there has been next to zero analysis in the media of what it would mean for the PL if City are vindicated.

The levels of mental gymnastics and Nelsonian blindness involved here are off the fucking scale.
Click to expand...
Over the years you’ve made so many top posts, for me this is one of your best.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
The levels of mental gymnastics and Nelsonian blindness involved here are off the fucking scale.
Click to expand...
he didn't actually go blind, you know.

there is a mythical blindness that he went blind.

1794
a cannonball hit a sandbag near to him.
he lost some clarity but not his sight
and he never wore an eyepatch.

his story sort of reflects the 115/130 story...

if it is said enough times it becomes true.
 
Damocles said:
I might be getting Clarkied here, or there's a great chance that my Nelson lore is wrong, but he held up the scope to his blind eye and said "I see no signal" (later apocryphal as "I see no ships") because he was kicking the fuck of the red cartel (the Danes) and the shitehawk cowards wanted to retreat but he ploughed through and smashed everyone.

Got to be honest, don't have a history degree.
Click to expand...
see my post above, blue.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
I’ve thought about this further and it gets worse.

The club has made its position clear. They expressly deny any wrongdoing, which plainly means an absence of any fraudulent activity whatsoever. That is City’s unequivocal stated position.

So an organisation that turns over 700 million quid, that has been accused of fraud by its regulatory body, unequivocally states that the allegations are entirely false. And they have ‘irrefutable’ proof of this. Strident words.

And yet there has been zero input from the press about the implications if this is correct, which is plainly seismic. If the club’s assertion is correct then they have been accused of something of which they have not done. That’s a huge deal by any objective measure.

Think of the Wagatha Christie trial. Imagine one of the statements of case, say Vardy, being forensically examined by the press and the implications for all parties if the court found favour with her case being set out in great detail. And then the only scenario being presented for Rooney was one where her defence didn’t get over the line because there wasn’t enough proof, without any reference to what it would mean if her stated case was upheld by the court.

That’s actually what we are dealing with here. The club’s defence is that the charges are bollocks and yet there has been next to zero analysis in the media of what it would mean for the PL if City are vindicated.

The levels of mental gymnastics and Nelsonian blindness involved here are off the fucking scale.
Click to expand...

The press has always presumed our guilt and essentially presented it as the PL trying to prove what everybody knows but fighting City's legal might and financial obfuscation and subterfuge.

City being guilty is the starting premise, albeit not explicity stated, it's implied in tone.

With the rare exception of the likes of Martin Samuel, nobody has ever questioned the process of how the PL choose to apply extreme scrutiny towards City, and seemingly cursory assessment of many other clubs.

Even if we accept 'the hacked emails' gave the PL some cause for concern, it should still be questioned why nothing was detected by their own processes at a much earlier stage. Essentially it sounds like they'd have found nothing on their own, and only via hacked emails did they have any reason to investigate ofurther. Even after this, they have hardly acted in a timely manner, but rather 'gathered evidence' over a prolonged period whilst also claiming we have obstructed investigation.

Clearly the entire process doesn't work well - neither for the PL nor the accused club.

As you rightly say... if we are declared to be innocent or as many will claim 'manage to get away with it', what will it say about the decisions and processes within the PL? If the evidence is so weak why did the PL continue trying for so many years? If it's so strong, then unless the evidence is quite recent, what took so long to charge us?
It should spell the death knell for the PL's ability to regulate itself, through no fault of anything but it's own incompetence.
It ought to warrant a similar level of investigative scrutiny into its own operations and communications regarding this case. Let's see how cooperative they and the member clubs are then.

I really hope this doesn't get brushed under the carpet, but I suspect it might end up that way. It'll be a monumental PL fuckup, possibly premeditated witchhunt and should be exposed as such.
 
Football contracts are till end of June typically have we really signed him to August 2034 just to make 115? Tixi should have his sweater dry cleaned in October for a November signing for 115 months
 
there will be a coordinated media response if we are found not guilty. how PL messed up, how they didnt do their investigation well enough,how they didnt look for evidence in the right place, how their lawyers fucked up, how the panel had ties to City, how Masters is a weak leader for PL, how PL needs even stronger FFP going forward.

very little will be about City not being guilty of the charges. probably two articles from M Samuel vs 1000s written with vitriol of getting away with it

most will be about how PL leadership not fit for purpose.
they are not good enough if they couldnt punish City severely. this will be the crucial take.
that PL needs a leadership who can catch City.
 
Damanino said:
there will be a coordinated media response if we are found not guilty. how PL messed up, how they didnt do their investigation well enough,how they didnt look for evidence in the right place, how their lawyers fucked up, how the panel had ties to City, how Masters is a weak leader for PL, how PL needs even stronger FFP going forward.

very little will be about City not being guilty of the charges. probably two articles from M Samuel vs 1000s written with vitriol of getting away with it

most will be about how PL leadership not fit for purpose.
they are not good enough if they couldnt punish City severely. this will be the crucial take.
that PL needs a leadership who can catch City.
Click to expand...

Loopholes mate, it'll all be about loopholes.

Which is why we should sue every person/organisation who propagates these lies.
 
Most of the last 8 pages has been tedious stuff about The Guardian, left wing, etc.

Can we take that to off topic.
 
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