PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

bobbyowenquiff said:
It was a deliberate strategy to damage City. Like charging a driver who had no licence for a year with 365 charges of driving without a licence. There are perhaps five broad allegations. The accounts were said to be false on multiple occasions over a long period. The PL split the charges to make it look worse and they briefed the Times before telling City. One senior Labour Peer close to the case called it “a drive-by shooting by the PL.” This is what we have been dealing with. Masters needs to be held accountable.
Click to expand...

& the board, they were all in on it except Matthew Ryder KC who was brought in after.
Alison Brittain, Richard Masters, May Fyfield, Dharmush Mistry must have known but not a fucking chance did they run it past a KC, to compound the charges & get the press release wrong.

So is it possible the board didn’t have the relevant knowledge or experience & got it horrendously wrong?
 
No doubt there are some very capable people employed by the PL. Richard Masters does not come across as one of them but that is not why he was recruited .. he knows and it shows.
 
spiny said:
No doubt there are some very capable people employed by the PL. Richard Masters does not come across as one of them but that is not why he was recruited .. he knows and it shows.
Click to expand...

From that video clip of him being interviewed, looks like he’s been smashing out the Just For Men. The slow car crash of him being exposed as the incompetent he is must be getting to him.
 
I’m always going on about the board failing in its duty so I wanted to know when they joined.

Alison Brittain joined January 2023, so a month before City were charged so. She had likely had 1 board meetings & worked approx 40 hours in the role.

Matthew Ryder KC’s appointment was 17th February 2023, so approx 2 weeks later.
 
petrusha said:
Bollocks. See, for instance, para 15 of this judgment in the Court of Appeal. Not prepared to answer further questions on this.
Click to expand...
Just reading paragraph 22, do I read it correctly that city actions were not tactical as the PL and the media (jordan in particular) suggest, but they just didn't want information out in the public domain?
 
petrusha said:
Bollocks. See, for instance, para 15 of this judgment in the Court of Appeal. Not prepared to answer further questions on this.
Click to expand...

:) It wouldn't be the first time I have been talking bollocks, but wasn't that all due to a Section X arbitration hearing, not a Section W disciplinary hearing?

Happy to have it confirmed I am talking bollocks.
 
blueste41 said:
How do you know the KC's know? When Sir Wyn gave his interim report on the horizon inquiry earlier this month he was clear that he has no idea when the full report will be completed. I can't think of an enquiry or arbitration case where timelines have been provided, why is this one different?
Click to expand...
Nobody (KCs on both sides included) knows (or rather as of the time when I got this information, knew) when the decision will be/would be made. There was an initial expectation (it doesn't seem that was based on anything other than general experience ie not from the IC itself) around March/April but that came and went. This information was from multiple sources earlier in the Summer so it is possible more guidance has now been given but I am minded to think it remains a black box. As you'd imagine, various very senior parties (lawyers and principals) have been on holiday and will be on holiday - they are not simply cancelling everything pending a decision. Obviously, as ever, believe what you like.
 
Milesvk said:
Just reading paragraph 22, do I read it correctly that city actions were not tactical as the PL and the media (jordan in particular) suggest, but they just didn't want information out in the public domain?
Click to expand...
No - it means the PL said it was tactical, City said it wasn't but the Court dodged the question and made no finding either way
 
roy.or.r said:
It would be interesting to see what the reactions would be whether we win or lose, both from City and rival fans. If we lose, they will obviously think we cheated which is fair enough. But if we win, would they believe the charges were actually complete bollocks or would they say we have paid them off? Similarly with our fans, if we win, then we will know we didn't cheat and take the decision. But if we lose, will our fans accept that we cheated or will we think we have been stitched up? I am very interested to see how these all pan out.
Click to expand...
From a City fan's perspective I'll be delighted if we win and I would like to think that the club will go medieval with the Premier League and it's cronies.

from a rivals perspective, I would imagine it'll go something like this:

If we win the case they'll say we paid (cheated) the panel off.

If we lose they'll say we cheated and I told you so.

The majority of fans of the red cartel have already made up their minds or more accurately the British media have made up their minds for them.

When you've been drip fed the narrative of MCFC equals cheats for over two years it tends to stick in the psyche.

common sense isn't that common these days and most people are very easily influenced.

it's very rare you'll meet a person who is open minded. Anyone who says that they are open minded tend to have very strong opinions.
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
Don’t forget that the APT case statement revealed that Masters ignored his own lawyers’ advice when he pressed ahead with the unlawful rule changes. A mistake that has cost his organisation many millions of pounds already….and could get worse with more action pending.
Click to expand...
Hard to believe the guy is still in a job really. Unlikely to last more than 24 hours if the case goes against the PL.
 
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