PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

cheekybids said:
This whole charade started with “I’ve just got a teeling” that City are cooking the books. Now there’s nothing up with conveying feelings when there is no news.

My feeling is Masters pivot to global PR in the face of domestic scrutiny, signals reputation management—not just leadership. Masters is laying groundwork for a graceful exit, fans and stakeholders should be asking harder questions about accountability at the top of the game.

For years PL clubs have been going on tour & never has the CEO attended, never mind given interviews.
Click to expand...
The worst thing of all is the total lack of challenge from the clubs to how badly their CEO has performed. Masters has wasted tens of millions of pounds of his members' money on fruitless legal actions, introduced rules which make it harder for clubs to attract external investment, presided over an organisation which leaks confidential information about its clubs (not just City. also Forest, Everton for starters). There has also been no scrutiny from the media into Masters' tenure even though he was appointed with no appropriate experience to be a CEO of anything. A person who presides over a multi billion pound empire with no significant experience of financial leadership, a person with no legal experience who has made numerous legal blunders, even ignoring his own legal advice. Yet still no one is asking questions.
 
bluetonium said:
"Hand over the self-incriminating emails"

"What emails? They don't exist, we can't hand them over"

"Guilty of non cooperation. Now how about opening your books, and those of third parties with no legal obligation to do so, to a panel of your rivals and competitors?"
Click to expand...
Or even funnier: "Hand over those emails"

"We haven't got them because we are legally required to delete them after a six-year period. We didn't want to be prosecuted for breaching data protection. In any case you have approved our audited accounts for the last decade and never told us there was anything wrong with them."
 
Tracking back said:
David Bohm was a renowned theoretical physicist who once said:

"Thought creates our world and says... I didn't do it"
Click to expand...
bohm is one of my greatest heroes.
(i am an artist trained as a theoretical physicist.
his words make sense in both my worlds)

in point of fact,
a few years ago i recommended his book "on creativity" to gdm for his son to read (which i am sure he will confirm by simply calling me a **** of somesortorother)

complete respect to you, t.b., for knowing bohm.
 
The two things that struck me about that Masters interview with Bloomberg were:
  1. They're suppose to be a serious and respected financial outlet so the question about why our case was taking so long when the Everton one was concluded quickly was a fucking stupid one to ask in the first place. It showed they knew fuck all about the two situations.
  2. Having asked it, his answer was hesitant and slightly incoherent. It should have been on the lines of "You can't compare the two cases. In Everton's case, the PSR rules are quite straightforward and while there may be some wiggle room, it's quite black and white, a bit like going to court for speeding; you were caught driving in excess of the speed limit, probably significantly so, but there may be some mitigation. City's case is more akin to a complex commercial dispute where there are in-depth technical questions to grapple with and a mountain of documents in evidence. That will clearly take a lot longer to resolve".
You can bet if Khaldoon had been asked the same question, his answer would have been much more confident and cohesive. With Masters, you got the impression he really wasn't on top of his brief, and you could see why perhaps he lacks the strength of character to stand up to some of the louder voices in the room.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
The two things that struck me about that Masters interview with Bloomberg were:
  1. They're suppose to be a serious and respected financial outlet so the question about why our case was taking so long when the Everton one was concluded quickly was a fucking stupid one to ask in the first place. It showed they knew fuck all about the two situations.
  2. Having asked it, his answer was hesitant and slightly incoherent. It should have been on the lines of "You can't compare the two cases. In Everton's case, the PSR rules are quite straightforward and while there may be some wiggle room, it's quite black and white, a bit like going to court for speeding; you were caught driving in excess of the speed limit, probably significantly so, but there may be some mitigation. City's case is more akin to a complex commercial dispute where there are in-depth technical questions to grapple with and a mountain of documents in evidence. That will clearly take a lot longer to resolve".
You can bet if Khaldoon had been asked the same question, his answer would have been much more confident and cohesive. With Masters, you got the impression he really wasn't on top of his brief, and you could see why perhaps he lacks the strength of character to stand up to some of the louder voices in the room.
Click to expand...
Maybe Bloomberg did know about the difference between the two situations but felt much of their audience wouldn’t, and so asked it expecting Masters to make clear the obvious differences himself - which, as you say, he did not then do.

On the other hand, maybe I’m giving them far too much credit …
 
Champions again in 2012 said:
Interesting that in the Paqueta case the FA have stated they are waiting for the written reasons from the regulatory board before commenting. Also interesting that the announcement relates only to charges being proven or not proven and the sanctions hearing will be held as soon as possible.

@slbsn - In your view Is there a scenario that the independent review panel will announce the outcome of our charges without first issuing a document to both parties?
Click to expand...
we’ve seen these done in various ways so could be either decision with reasons a few days later or like the APT and PSR cases with the full reasons and decision in one.
 
calumdown said:
bohm is one of my greatest heroes.
(i am an artist trained as a theoretical physicist.
his words make sense in both my worlds)

in point of fact,
a few years ago i recommended his book "on creativity" to gdm for his son to read (which i am sure he will confirm by simply calling me a **** of somesortorother)

complete respect to you, t.b., for knowing bohm.
Click to expand...
You need to get a proper job.
 

bobbyowenquiff said:
Or even funnier: "Hand over those emails"

"We haven't got them because we are legally required to delete them after a six-year period. We didn't want to be prosecuted for breaching data protection. In any case you have approved our audited accounts for the last decade and never told us there was anything wrong with them."
Click to expand...
Touche.
 
calumdown said:
by day i am a grammar wanker.
does that count?

sexy-cop-mens-costume.jpg
Click to expand...
It obviously doesn’t apply at night then, reading that.
 
Plays By Sense Of Smell said:
Would love the findings to contain reference to this being a clear and organised smear campaign that was ‘as subtle as a snooker ball in a sock’.
Click to expand...

In the ATP case, they seemed to frame blatant corruption as mere incompetence. So unfortunately, no matter how obvious this entire corrupt mess is, I suspect they’ll hold off on calling it out.
 
Last edited:
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