PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

nmc said:
He doesn’t hate City… he hates himself and the world. That’s why he writes bitter negative drivel at every turn. Look at how he reacted to Newcastle winning the League Cup - he just lives in a cycle of hate and bitterness that runs through his veins. I pity the man.
Click to expand...
To me, that clearly indicates he's in Liverpool's pocket, like Delaney.
 
eastmanc said:
I might be wrong here but didn't Stefan say that not providing absolutely everything you have is a tried and trusted litigation tactic.
Click to expand...

Nobody completely opens up everything to an investigation. You only provide what you are asked for, to the extent required by the law, or the PL rules in this case.

The question before the panel, I suppose, is if the club did that or not.
 
Saddleworth2 said:
it doesn't make any sense. Accused of the most serious charges - Fraud, what the hell were we supposed to do? Roll over and have our tummy tickled? If we are found not guilty of the most serious charges then we have definitely won and no media spin will alter that.
Click to expand...
It is absolutely bizarre. The only grounds for a non-cooperation finding is if the panel were to specifically say that there wasn't enough evidence provided for them to form a firm conclusion as to our innocence but the evidence provided by the PL wasn't sufficient to meet the threshold for them finding us in breach.

Anyway, make of this what you will but I've heard, second hand, that all senior staff have been told to be in HQ today.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Nobody completely opens up everything to an investigation. You only provide what you are asked for, to the extent required by the law, or the PL rules in this case.

The question before the panel, I suppose, is if the club did that or not.
Click to expand...
not really, i think the pl asked for things way outside its remit so could say that we didnt supply the info they asked for but its the pls decision to decide if they had any right to ask for the information they wanted, by all accounts they were asking for such ridiculous things as the personal accounts of the sheikh and access to the etihads books which they have absolutely no remit to ask for.
 
Stoned Rose said:

RemovePaywall | Free online paywall remover

Remove Paywall, free online paywall remover. Get access to articles without having to pay or login. Works on Bloomberg and hundreds more.
www.removepaywall.com www.removepaywall.com

For anyone who wants to read it.
Click to expand...
'Cliff is a faintly Musk-ish figure, who appears to be fond of shouting the odds and calling the shots. He tells the other 19 Premier League clubs what is legal and what is illegal and when to fall in line and when to disobey.'

And it turned out he was right, why didn't he write that?
 
I think Stefan is correct again. Nobody knows the verdict other than the panel. The rest is everyone getting prepared for the verdict to drop. As we get nearer to the official verdict impatience grows and it’s human nature to read things into absolutely nothing.

The Keegan tweet is a good example. You can read anything into that if you want to but if you remember that SKY do not know the verdict either it’s meaningless. It’s just another swirling rumour that counts for nothing.

City and the PL will have a feeling of how the case went and no doubt both sets of lawyers believe they have been at least partially successful and have been positive with their clients. Even they don’t know for sure.

On a side note did you know that “Borson” means a grower or seller of peas? So even I have put my faith in Captain Birdseye ;-)

@slbsn How do you like your Superhero name?
 
Last edited:
Prestwich_Blue said:
It is absolutely bizarre. The only grounds for a non-cooperation finding is if the panel were to specifically say that there wasn't enough evidence provided for them to form a firm conclusion as to our innocence but the evidence provided by the PL wasn't sufficient to meet the threshold for them finding us in breach.
Click to expand...
It’s almost a circular argument. If they need us to provide ‘evidence’ and let’s assume we haven’t, whatever that means, how do they get to charge us in the first place?
Alternatively, they have enough evidence to charge us, so where does ‘non-cooperation’ fit it?
 
john blue said:
how may times do we have to see the rooney goal , the cantana goal , how many do they show of our goals in our treble, four on the trot titles, utter shite now sky, gone down the nick rapid.
Click to expand...
I'm surprised they've still got the blue and white ribbons on the PL trophy when they break for an advert tbh.
 
Inter Me Nan said:
'Cliff is a faintly Musk-ish figure, who appears to be fond of shouting the odds and calling the shots. He tells the other 19 Premier League clubs what is legal and what is illegal and when to fall in line and when to disobey.'

And it turned out he was right, why didn't he write that?
Click to expand...
hey we all can do that

'Holt is a faintly hitler-ish figure who appears to be fond of writing complete and utter nonsense about things he doesnt understand. He then tells people who dont know any better that they should listen to him because he knows some big words'
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
It is absolutely bizarre. The only grounds for a non-cooperation finding is if the panel were to specifically say that there wasn't enough evidence provided for them to form a firm conclusion as to our innocence but the evidence provided by the PL wasn't sufficient to meet the threshold for them finding us in breach.

Anyway, make of this what you will but I've heard, second hand, that all senior staff have been told to be in HQ today.
Click to expand...
Just a naive question, do you mean all the senior staff from City....?
 
The Light Was Yellow Sir said:
It’s almost a circular argument. If they need us to provide ‘evidence’ and let’s assume we haven’t, whatever that means, how do they get to charge us in the first place?
Alternatively, they have enough evidence to charge us, so where does ‘non-cooperation’ fit it?
Click to expand...
from a legal standpoint its bizarre because you simply cannot prove a negative, its them saying we know you have the information and us saying no we dont, and them saying prove you dont, how would we do that send them a picture of an empty filing cabinet and go see nothing there.
 
SouthStandStander said:
Im waiting for the soft signal from @slbsn of an imminent imminent announcement, 1 of these hopefully upcoming mornings... "just on my way to London. Be on here later blues. Have a nice day ;-)"
Click to expand...
I can't help but have that sinking feeling WHEN we are told we are 100% found innocent he will still.come out with "it's not all it's seems" etc
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
It is absolutely bizarre. The only grounds for a non-cooperation finding is if the panel were to specifically say that there wasn't enough evidence provided for them to form a firm conclusion as to our innocence but the evidence provided by the PL wasn't sufficient to meet the threshold for them finding us in breach.

Anyway, make of this what you will but I've heard, second hand, that all senior staff have been told to be in HQ today.
Click to expand...
Hopefully they’ve not all been told to take a cardboard box in with them…..
 
mancboy said:
from a legal standpoint its bizarre because you simply cannot prove a negative, its them saying we know you have the information and us saying no we dont, and them saying prove you dont, how would we do that send them a picture of an empty filing cabinet and go see nothing there.
Click to expand...
It's bizarre only as far as they never had a leg to.stand on from the start and the whole process is the punishment for us regardless of the verdict
 
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