PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

March was mooted as the earliest a decision could arrive, however with complexity of case it could even be as late as post season. Mad to think we could be 2 to 4 weeks away from an announcement.

Even with the session we've had looking like aging players and burnout let's not forget the mental resilience our boys have had whilst all this went on.
 
Manchester1894 said:
March was mooted as the earliest a decision could arrive, however with complexity of case it could even be as late as post season. Mad to think we could be 2 to 4 weeks away from an announcement.

Even with the session we've had looking like aging players and burnout let's not forget the mental resilience our boys have had whilst all this went on.
Click to expand...
I always look burnt out after a session.
 
tolmie's hairdoo said:
That's the point. He states there is an intention to work with no rules to continue to enable fraudulent commercial deals.

I spoke to City the other week when Sherwood said on Sky that we don't play by the rules and they had to issue an on-air apology.
Click to expand...

out of curiosity, what did the club say about that?

Have they said anything about herberts article?
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
I've said before that Conn hasn't written about us for a few years, despite the PL charges and the APT hearings. I doubt that's accidental. I'd like to think we've had a stern word, possibly even taken legal action.

I have no problem with journalists criticising us but I do have a problem in them slandering us, and there are remedies for that. Herbert has just repeated Wallace's article, so it's not even an original thought, but neither has any basis in truth and if we let them go then we deserve everything we get.

Even if we do something privately that's not enough. It's about time we made an example of someone, and publicly.
Click to expand...

So if MCFC decided to take response
Prestwich_Blue said:
I've said before that Conn hasn't written about us for a few years, despite the PL charges and the APT hearings. I doubt that's accidental. I'd like to think we've had a stern word, possibly even taken legal action.

I have no problem with journalists criticising us but I do have a problem in them slandering us, and there are remedies for that. Herbert has just repeated Wallace's article, so it's not even an original thought, but neither has any basis in truth and if we let them go then we deserve everything we get.

Even if we do something privately that's not enough. It's about time we made an example of someone, and publicly.
Click to expand...

You have mixed in and around the club, talked to people there. Why do you believe that they do not take action against people in the media responsible for the defamation ?
 
Just a curiosity question for @slbsn . In my line of work, I audit contractors proposals and produce an allowable cost report in single source pricing. My report will be peered reviewed, then output assured to check content and numbers satisfy regulations and then final release authority by the department lead. On the 115 case when the panel finish the first version of the findings, will it go through a similar process with other judges before being released?
 
Milesvk said:
Just a curiosity question for @slbsn . In my line of work, I audit contractors proposals and produce an allowable cost report in single source pricing. My report will be peered reviewed, then output assured to check content and numbers satisfy regulations and then final release authority by the department lead. On the 115 case when the panel finish the first version of the findings, will it go through a similar process with other judges before being released?
Click to expand...
No. Other people haven't heard the evidence so only the IC can decide the case.
 
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