PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Prestwich_Blue said:
He definitely got some ripe replies over that but instead of ignoring them he lashes out with abuse.

I'd had some decent conversations with him prior to that and tried to persuade him to step away from his keyboard but he then had a go at me.

I completely lost any respect for him after that.
Click to expand...
He's always been a bit of a bellend.
 
HelloCity said:
Sorry pal, but you relentlessly quote me in the construction thread with false information. The amount of times I have to put you right again is laughable.

The fact you’re now coming at me defensively obsessing over some random journalist is a bit creepy to be honest.

Tbh, I can’t work it if you’re more obsessed with me or Sam Lee…
Click to expand...
Are you mistaking me for someone else because that makes no sense whatsoever?
 
halfcenturyup said:
But if anything was hidden (like the loss underwriting payments, for example) we wouldn't know about it because it was hidden .... that, in a nutshell, is my problem. I just don't understand enough about it to say, with any degree of confidence, that it isn't a "non-serious" issue.

Never mind, we will find out soon enough :)
Click to expand...
Why set up a account for image rights that visible to Uefa & probably the EPL & hide the loss underwritten payments. I'm not an accountant by any means but it seems pretty stupid to me & easily detectable, when according to the Premier League we are hiding much higher payments of funding through Etihad via Sheikh Mansour
 
supercity88 said:
There won't be a delay if the outcome is negative for City. It will be leaked immediately.
Click to expand...

In which case it could be argued the longer it goes without hearing, the more likely it is that we will be happy with the verdict.

TBH, if it’s a win I would be quite happy for City to wait to release it until the day Liverpool lifted the league.
 
HelloCity said:
Sorry pal, but you relentlessly quote me in the construction thread with false information. The amount of times I have to put you right again is laughable.

The fact you’re now coming at me defensively obsessing over some random journalist is a bit creepy to be honest.

Tbh, I can’t work it if you’re more obsessed with me or Sam Lee…
Click to expand...
About time the three of you got a room. ;)
 
Think an early announcement this month would be absolutely great for the squad and I'd fancy us to go on a run after it. Hopefully that panel comes up with something asap
 
oakiecokie said:
About time the three of you got a room. ;)
Click to expand...
I honestly have no idea what the first two sentences are about, unless he has two accounts and uses the other one to bang on about how we should copy Spurs, Dortmund and one of the yank football/baseball/whatever clubs. That's the only person I've seriously disagreed with in either of the construction threads to my recollection.
 
Centurions said:
You mean this? Not exactly the same is it?

Click to expand...

tbf it is somewhat the same when you think about it, he is making the assumption that we must have done something if the pl says we have and its either an extreme point of view to say that we havent done anything or that we are dodgy as fuck when it isnt, if we take what he says at face value then you have to say that EVERY club has done something that the pl should be going after them for, otherwise its just assuming that city are guilty because the pl say we are.
 
mancboy said:
tbf it is somewhat the same when you think about it, he is making the assumption that we must have done something if the pl says we have and its either an extreme point of view to say that we havent done anything or that we are dodgy as fuck when it isnt, if we take what he says at face value then you have to say that EVERY club has done something that the pl should be going after them for, otherwise its just assuming that city are guilty because the pl say we are.
Click to expand...
That's not how I read it myself, I thought it was more a comment about how polarised society in general is (just look at the yanks eating themselves).

To be fair I may be giving him far too much latitude there but only he could answer as to his motives.
 
Centurions said:
That's not how I read it myself, I thought it was more a comment about how polarised society in general is (just look at the yanks eating themselves).

To be fair I may be giving him far too much latitude there but only he could answer as to his motives.
Click to expand...
Its definitely open to interpretation and he certainly has a point that society has become polarised but the middle ground is making the assumption that because an organisation which has continually shown itself to be acting in bad faith and that is constantly changing the goalposts in order to hamstring us has said we have done something then we must have done something and i think if that is the case then we have to assume that every single club has done something and should be subjected to a forensic deep dive of its accounts going back a minimum of 15 years and we should start with a couple of clubs one whose owners have already been sanctioned for cheating in their sports endeavours and who are sponsored by a bank sanctioned for funding terrorism and another who have been repeatedly pardoned by the pl with exemptions not available to any other clubs and whose accounts are registered in the caymans and murkey at best.
 
Didn't see you guys discuss MailSport saying we will not face sanctions when the club receives the verdict on their 115 allegations of PL financial rules. But I have no idea how relevant that information is, City fans on social media seem very happy with knowing that.
 
mancboy said:
Its definitely open to interpretation and he certainly has a point that society has become polarised but the middle ground is making the assumption that because an organisation which has continually shown itself to be acting in bad faith and that is constantly changing the goalposts in order to hamstring us has said we have done something then we must have done something and i think if that is the case then we have to assume that every single club has done something and should be subjected to a forensic deep dive of its accounts going back a minimum of 15 years and we should start with a couple of clubs one whose owners have already been sanctioned for cheating in their sports endeavours and who are sponsored by a bank sanctioned for funding terrorism and another who have been repeatedly pardoned by the pl with exemptions not available to any other clubs and whose accounts are registered in the caymans and murkey at best.
Click to expand...
That should be 'the assumption is because an organisation which has continually shown itself to be acting in bad faith and that is constantly changing the goalposts in order to hamstring us has said we have done something then we must have done something, is the middle ground'. Exactly. I don't know what the final/next 2 hearings will decide, but if City prevail, and I would argue City have prevailed in the first 2 hearings, then the City position is the middle ground, and those who have claimed to have been occupying it in lending weight to the PL case will in fact have been found to have been lending it undue weight. Pending appeal, the verdict will be the middle ground. The default is the PL and 19 member clubs are vestal virgins, while City are up to no good.
 
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