PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

calumdown said:
i wonder what the reasoning is that the article's focus is city having a pop at arsenal, when in fact, of the 4 clubs mentioned, arsenal had the least amount of money loaned to them?
Click to expand...
I think it's just alphabetical order in the article, nothing more than that. Something that seems lost on our pet Tarquin too, but I suspect he's aware that 'the cap fits' etc.
 
The Light Was Yellow Sir said:
Fair enough, although that’s only if nobody else clicked on it, after you posted it.
Just don’t give them any attention, whatsoever. They know we’re a tad sensitive at the minute so any negative stuff will be clicked on by rags, dips, tarquins, a few others and City fans. The only bit we can control is the last bit and that’s by ignoring it.
Click to expand...
In hindsight mate I don’t think I put it across well and missed the mark quite a bit on what I wanted to be a light hearted swipe at the gutter press.
Yeah, I wouldn’t click into them.

I get your point.
Either way have a good weekend, let’s hope we smash the rags come Sunday.
 
wolviedinho said:
It’s almost like we know the result…

This is a huge hard signal imo. You don’t start taking the league and other clubs on from a position of weakness.

I can’t see a negative. City have gotten the league by the balls. The real financial cheats is the very same club that termed the phrase “financial doping” and wrote it on a letter.

Now we are getting somewhere. No wonder that **** bloom won’t sell to us.
Click to expand...
Is this the first lesson in Khaldoon’s warning about people in glass houses throwing stones?
 
Chris in London said:
Completely different panel. One is a disciplinary panel, the other is the tribunal for a rule X arbitration. So the APT panel is one where we chose one arbitrator, the PL chose the second and the third was agreed between the two chosen arbitrators. The 115 panel was chosen by the PL.

So there's no overlap between the panels, and any overlap between the lawyers is a non-point because we know the 115 hearing concluded last year. And we know from the APT 2 decision that City had already launched the APT 3 arbitration by the end of January: para 69 of APT 2 says
"However, there remains for decision (in the fresh arbitration commenced on 20 January 2025) whether the November 2024 Amended APT Rules are valid and effective."

All that's happened is that the statement of case we provided in January has now been passed to the other clubs, and - quelle surprise - it ended up being leaked.
Click to expand...
Just before a big game as well

You could set your watch to it
 
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