PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

happy said:
Living in Surrey, I delight in using Mancunianisms

Form - Bench
Brew - Hill
Flags - Paving Stones
Barmcake - There is no translation, a barmcake is a fucking barmcake, not a fucking bap/roll/muffin or cob.
Click to expand...
It's a barm over in sunny Warrington as well.
 
Last edited:
gocity said:
Will we be informed of the result before we have to decide whether to renew our season ticket. My friend tends to have a pessimistic view of our chances and would not renew if our director's assurances are proved to be false.
Click to expand...
why would this matter???? I assume you ARE a City fan even if your 'mate' doesnt sound like they are?
 
mancboy said:
How true it is i dont know but the rumour was is that they were asking for stuff well outside their remit not withstanding personal accounts of people, external companies opening up their books, both of which they know damn well they arent entitled to but how else could they prove their theory. We have submitted audited accounts to them for 15 years which they have accepted as being accurate, they then accused of them being not fair and accurate and that funding was disguised etc etc, they cant prove that theory solely by looking at our accounts because our accounts were presented as accurate, the only way they could prove that is by inspecting accounts of outside entities in an effort to prove their theory, they have no right to ask for that information and nor would it be provided to them should they ask and that is where the route of the none co-operation comes in, they were asking for things they knew they were never going to get and then blamed us for not giving it to them, its like me going to lamborghini and asking for one and them not giving it to me cos i havent paid for it and have no right to it and me suing lamborghini for not giving me a car just because i wanted it.
Click to expand...
pretty much, the PL also changed the rules to add in the inclusion of the 3rd party accounts but the wording is only to try and obtain it. City can say they tried but failed, that is still co-operating in my book. The other thing the PL tried to do was apply this new rule retrospectively which City argued in court but unfortunately failed. So we clearly didn't supply what was asked for at the time but only because we thought what they were asking for was illegal and it needed clarification from a judge. This could be construed as no co-operating I guess but surely it can't be a big thing in the whole process. it's just admin stuff.
 
Ruben Anorim, his team always takes an hammering,
He'll get United relegated,
He's guna take them dowwwwwwwn,
Song for the Derby :-)
Off topic sorry, but boosts us towards 10,000 pages haha
 
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