PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Tomblue]

Now that you have stopped winning everything, I genuinely think that people don't really care any more. I know I don't and I used to be obsessed with the case. Surely you must have noticed this? Apart from a few die-hards on Twitter, it barely gets a mention.

We have had one season where we haven’t won the league haha. Don’t worry Goochy lad you will be back obsessing over it soon enough.

 

[oldius]

Now that you have stopped winning everything, I genuinely think that people don't really care any more. I know I don't and I used to be obsessed with the case. Surely you must have noticed this? Apart from a few die-hards on Twitter, it barely gets a mention.

I can understand this from Liverpool. It was always not winning that was the issue for you. The belief that you have a right to dine at the top table was always the Achilles heel for your fanbase. Nobody has the right. There is nothing special about your club nor any other - all football fans love their clubs, and no club deserves success, it has to be earned. To win once in thirty years before last season is testimony to your stubbornness as a fanbase though - to still believe that you have that right to be at the top after all that time is something strange.

Why were you personally obsessed with a case that didn't involve your club?
Generally speaking, I don't think City fans have much interest in other clubs at all.

 

[Silva2021]

So you have gone from will be found guilt of something to I don’t know what we will be found guilt of to we will be painted in a bad light

Not sure where I said that, I do think there is the potential for Mancini’s contract, but what would have been the advantage at the time.

All probably goes on whether he got paid and whether he did the work.

Time will tell, but I’m certainly in no position to advise either way, just read judgments and know the press etc.

APT’s where wrote as some wins for both sides, even though it was clear City won, not least because PL have been ordered to pay costs.

 

[moomba]

Not sure where I said that, I do think there is the potential for Mancini’s contract, but what would have been the advantage at the time.

FFP didn't exist at the time so I'm guessing none.

And I do distinctly remember Mancini already working in Abu Dhabi when he joined us.

 

[fulabeer]

Now that you have stopped winning everything, I genuinely think that people don't really care any more. I know I don't and I used to be obsessed with the case. Surely you must have noticed this? Apart from a few die-hards on Twitter, it barely gets a mention.

So you thought you would go to the trouble to post to say you are NOT bothered by us anymore?......OK!

 

[blue b4 the moon]

Now that you have stopped winning everything, I genuinely think that people don't really care any more. I know I don't and I used to be obsessed with the case. Surely you must have noticed this? Apart from a few die-hards on Twitter, it barely gets a mention.

So an admittance that it's not really about the rules, it's just about stopping ickle City.

Off you pop to my ignore list to join other pricks.

 

[chaddblue]

Now that you have stopped winning everything, I genuinely think that people don't really care any more. I know I don't and I used to be obsessed with the case. Surely you must have noticed this? Apart from a few die-hards on Twitter, it barely gets a mention.

And in one post it summarises exactly why these charges were made

 

[mexico1970]

Now that you have stopped winning everything, I genuinely think that people don't really care any more. I know I don't and I used to be obsessed with the case. Surely you must have noticed this? Apart from a few die-hards on Twitter, it barely gets a mention.

How have we stopped winning everything?, we had a season off not 30 years like your skip dipping mob.

 

[Boris Yeltsin]

Now that you have stopped winning everything, I genuinely think that people don't really care any more. I know I don't and I used to be obsessed with the case. Surely you must have noticed this? Apart from a few die-hards on Twitter, it barely gets a mention.

It barely gets a mention because the mainstream media is not reporting on it any more in such slanderous fashion. Probably because they are now well aware of the legal implications of their reporting. Your consciousness and your opinions are directly influenced by that. Not us winning. We had one year off and that could well have been because of the barage of toxic negativity surrounding the case and the financial implications of the case, but as soon as the case is closed and the positivity returns you will be fuming again. This time towards the premier league and not towards City. The process is all very Pavlov's dog and you are the dog.

 

[SilverFox2]

The standard of proof is balance of probabilities because it's a civil case, but the nature of the most serious allegations means the evidence has to be particularly cogent, which raises the standard way beyond simple balance of probabilities, closer to beyond a reasonable doubt. Somewhere in the middle, I suppose. The panel isn't going to toss a mental coin and see which side it falls on. It will have been more like tossing a coin five times and unless the same result is achieved then forget it (yes, I know it's not a perfect analogy).

Add to that a presumption that people act responsibly and within the law, especially respected businessmen with impeccable reputations who give witness statements, and the PL better have some serious smoking documents if they want to have any chance at all of succeeding on the most serious charges. Which they won't.

Since both sides now have each other's emails and evidence, will there be too much that needs any balance of probability to examine?
By that I mean City show how payment has been made which contradicts their suspicion. I know we prove our innocence which goes against natural justice but they have made a mistake.

 

[mancboy]

Since both sides now have each other's emails and evidence, will there be too much that needs any balance of probability to examine?
By that I mean City show how payment has been made which contradicts their suspicion. I know we prove our innocence which goes against natural justice but they have made a mistake.

I think the pls argument is that the emails show something and citys arguments are twofold , firstly that the emails are out of context and secondly email conversations are not material proof of any actions taking place.

 

[SilverFox2]

I think the pls argument is that the emails show something and citys arguments are twofold , firstly that the emails are out of context and secondly email conversations are not material proof of any actions taking place.

I see that but if the evidence of actual payment is presented the previous emails intent was never acted upon.
The probability has neen supeceded by factual happenings.

 

[WRicko]

Not sure where I said that, I do think there is the potential for Mancini’s contract, but what would have been the advantage at the time.

All probably goes on whether he got paid and whether he did the work.

Time will tell, but I’m certainly in no position to advise either way, just read judgments and know the press etc.

APT’s where wrote as some wins for both sides, even though it was clear City won, not least because PL have been ordered to pay costs.

The comment I replied to said we could be painted in a bad light that’s not the same as guilt I think before that an in your comment just now your saying we could be guilty

 

[Eric Hitchmough]

I was a fresh faced whippersnapper when this process began. Now I’m a FOC.

Lord Lucan will appear before this fucking verdict.

 

[WRicko]

I personally don’t think relegation has ever been on the table. It’s nothing more than scaremongering. And I don’t think we are guilty on all counts. But as I’ve said previously, I’m not clued up on the laws the PL are working to, but to my limited knowledge it’s, at worst, creative accounting. A practice that every company will do. Might be wrong, though I’m usually always right, but we will see

The experts on here disagree and clearly false accounting / fraud is different to creative accounting

 

[manimanc]

Now that you have stopped winning everything, I genuinely think that people don't really care any more. I know I don't and I used to be obsessed with the case. Surely you must have noticed this? Apart from a few die-hards on Twitter, it barely gets a mention.

Just saying lad.
Having said that I bet you aren't even a proper scouser.
I'm going for London or Ireland.

 

[Bloominmarvellous]

The standard of proof is balance of probabilities because it's a civil case, but the nature of the most serious allegations means the evidence has to be particularly cogent, which raises the standard way beyond simple balance of probabilities, closer to beyond a reasonable doubt. Somewhere in the middle, I suppose. The panel isn't going to toss a mental coin and see which side it falls on. It will have been more like tossing a coin five times and unless the same result is achieved then forget it (yes, I know it's not a perfect analogy).

Add to that a presumption that people act responsibly and within the law, especially respected businessmen with impeccable reputations who give witness statements, and the PL better have some serious smoking documents if they want to have any chance at all of succeeding on the most serious charges. Which they won't.

Is that something specific to the PL internal cases as it almost sounds like some type of hybrid standard of proof.

I always assumed it would be the normal 51% type of affair like employment tribunals etc

 

[mancboy]

I was a fresh faced whippersnapper when this process began. Now I’m a FOC.

Lord Lucan will appear before this fucking verdict.

and hell come in riding shergar

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Is that something specific to the PL internal cases as it almost sounds like some type of hybrid standard of proof.

I always assumed it would be the normal 51% type of affair like employment tribunals etc

It’s a conflation of the burden and standard of proof, the latter being on the balance of probabilities, but the former requiring cogent evidence to support such a threshold. In broad terms, the more serious the allegation, the more cogent the core evidence needs to be to sustain it.

The laws of natural justice dictate that inferences should not be as readily drawn in cases where fraud is alleged.

 

[JASR]

Now that you have stopped winning everything, I genuinely think that people don't really care any more. I know I don't and I used to be obsessed with the case. Surely you must have noticed this? Apart from a few die-hards on Twitter, it barely gets a mention.

…and yet, your comment in the Social media thread about City being higher than Liverpool in followers, but only because of ‘115’, ‘cheats’ wanting to be shouted by nonCity fans:

A LOT more than you'd think.

So, you can’t have it both ways.
‘no one is mentioning the charges’ along with ‘they only signed up to mention the charges’

It’s certainly a sign of something to be able to hold 2 diametrically opposite views as both being true.

it’s also quite funny, that neither of your statements are completely true.

In the world of social media, City have been by far the most successful PL club in the last decade, so naturally people will gravitate to us ahead of others.

And in the world of bitter jealousy from the red cartel mardarses fed by a media pack of boyhood fans pineing for the past, the ‘115’ is mentioned at every opportunity in any interactions involving City.

the words of Haaland ‘stay humble’ are always apt when a red fan decides to spout nonsense.


Edit: regarding 115 being mentioned all the time. I remember commentating on a Roan negative article about the CWC, just last week. It was extremely noteworthy because it was a very rare example of a negative article about something that could easily have mentioned City, but amazingly didn’t mention City.