PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

bobbyowenquiff said:
Perhaps the PL Board ignored their own legal advice like they did in the APT case. You can never underestimate how stupid Masters and some of these Club Directors are.
Click to expand...
Clients ignoring advice and pushing on regardless is a wonderfully liberating experience.
 
SilverFox2 said:
I think you are right.

How stupid they were or perhaps it was hubris, to underestimate the financial power of our owners. It's one thing starting an expensive legal battle with a lesser financially capable opponent but seriously they must be mad to expect a similar result with our owners and their global and particularly USA connections.

Mr M did as he was told and will eventually pay the price but until then let their cost worries be the signals we look for.
Click to expand...

I think the other big 5 clubs have probably got deep enough pockets to pay for the legal fees. The fees will be a relatively small percentage of their overall income. But for the smaller clubs, who gain little from dispute whatever the outcome, it will be much more difficult to swallow.

Who’s going to be the first of the smaller clubs to break ranks and explicitly say they were forced into this by the cartel and they’re really pissed off about it? This could cause huge rifts in the League and City should be doing all they can to exploit this to build a power base. How do we throw these clubs a bone?
 
Last edited:
Leeky said:
Unnamed club chief: “The sums involved are eye-watering. The money going to lawyers is money that could've gone to the clubs..."

what a load of made up bollocks
Click to expand...

Did...they think a drawn out legal review was going to be done for peanuts?

Honestly, this is kind of a good sign for me. It almost feels like the cost only becomes an issue when the verdict isn't the one you want.
 
Leeky said:
Unnamed club chief: “The sums involved are eye-watering. The money going to lawyers is money that could've gone to the clubs..."

what a load of made up bollocks
Click to expand...

Think of the bleedin' children!!

giphy%2520(1).gif
 
Leeky said:
Unnamed club chief: “The sums involved are eye-watering. The money going to lawyers is money that could've gone to the clubs..."

what a load of made up bollocks
Click to expand...
I don’t think it is made up bollocks. Kieran McGuire was saying the same thing a couple of months ago. He’s definitely got close links with Brighton and Palace.
 
Last edited:
Centurions said:
Chelsea have now been under investigation for 3 years have they not? Regardless of how ours pans out and the cost, they can't just sweep that under the carpet surely?
Click to expand...
Their get out is that it was all under previous owners and nothing to do with the current ones. Also the government was heavily involved in the sale of the club to Boehly. How much appetite will there be to go after Chelsea if we get cleared and the government/PL should have made things clear prior to the sale?
 
I hope, when the begging bowl for legal fees came round to us, Khaldoon pissed in it and said boil that!! On a serious note, would we be expected to pay towards the PL case against us and have the teams that were in the PL over the years had to pay, so all in all it is around 30 clubs paying/missing out??
 
TheGhost said:
I think the other big 5 clubs have probably got deep enough pockets to pay for the legal fees. The fees will be a relatively small percentage of their overall income. But for the smaller clubs, who gain little from dispute whatever the outcome, it will be much more difficult to swallow.

Who’s going to be the first of the smaller clubs to break ranks and explicitly say they were forced into this by the cartel and they’re really pissed off about it? This could cause huge rifts in the League and City should be doing all they can to exploit this to build a power base. How do we throw these clubs a bone?
Click to expand...
Yes, I think we have offered zero to smaller clubs for their vote so the only incentive was a PL vote for us and.
I keep saying this but if they choose to ignore their own legal opinions and keep salami versions of an illegal rule they will continue to force expense.
 
TheGhost said:
Their get out is that it was all under previous owners and nothing to do with the current ones. Also the government was heavily involved in the sale of the club to Boehly. How much appetite will there be to go after Chelsea if we get cleared and the government/PL should have made things clear prior to the sale?
Click to expand...

A billion of that Chelsea purchase was supposed to go to Ukraine people and I believe not a penny has gone there either! Media quiet Chelsea cheating media quiet all there effort is all a Man City it’s all because of the scum they can’t have Man City out doing the media darlings!
 
TheGhost said:
Their get out is that it was all under previous owners and nothing to do with the current ones. Also the government was heavily involved in the sale of the club to Boehly. How much appetite will there be to go after Chelsea if we get cleared and the government/PL should have made things clear prior to the sale?
Click to expand...
Previous owner rules don't exist in the rule book. Chelsea has either broken the rules for that season or not and must be punished for that rule accordingly. If the PL come out with a statement about saying something about past owners I'd expect City and a few other clubs will be taking the premier league to court again.
 
TheGhost said:
Their get out is that it was all under previous owners and nothing to do with the current ones. Also the government was heavily involved in the sale of the club to Boehly. How much appetite will there be to go after Chelsea if we get cleared and the government/PL should have made things clear prior to the sale?
Click to expand...
question still is if they broke any rules at the time or not and did they benefit from it on a sporting level. dont think it matters much it was different ownership. if for us any imaginary Mancini payments still relevant a decade later, then surely Abra paying off agents off the books just as relevant, especially as for City the only person who might have cooked the books is Omar Berrada lol
paying off agents off the accounts to help move their players to Chelsea vs other interested PL clubs,

and simply not providing fair accounts for years, that is quite similar what some of our 115 charges are all about.

almost has the feel PL is working on proving Chelsea did not break rules despite they admitted they did. would never happen with City or even lower half sides.

there is some growing feeling about PL that they go hard vs Everton, Forest but go easy on the big boys. the Chelsea case is the test, where they self admitted quite bad things on how they operated for long years.
lot of fans say what about City, but our case is different as PL need to prove their charges even tho media and cartel made sure what the general consensus should be about City. guilty until proven innocent and al that.
 
Damanino said:
question still is if they broke any rules at the time or not and did they benefit from it on a sporting level. dont think it matters much it was different ownership. if for us any imaginary Mancini payments still relevant a decade later, then surely Abra paying off agents off the books just as relevant, especially as for City the only person who might have cooked the books is Omar Berrada lol
paying off agents off the accounts to help move their players to Chelsea vs other interested PL clubs,

and simply not providing fair accounts for years, that is quite similar what some of our 115 charges are all about.

almost has the feel PL is working on proving Chelsea did not break rules despite they admitted they did. would never happen with City or even lower half sides.

there is some growing feeling about PL that they go hard vs Everton, Forest but go easy on the big boys. the Chelsea case is the test, where they self admitted quite bad things on how they operated for long years.
lot of fans say what about City, but our case is different as PL need to prove their charges even tho media and cartel made sure what the general consensus should be about City. guilty until proven innocent and al that.
Click to expand...

Yep don’t matter it’s new ownership and they admitted to the previous owner paying of the books payment to require Hazard and a few others, that there is a sporting advantage never Hazard made there club much better and contributed to them winning a champions league! For me it’s a massive fine points deduction and a transfer ban!
 
waspish said:
Yep don’t matter it’s new ownership and they admitted to the previous owner paying of the books payment to require Hazard and a few others, that there is a sporting advantage never Hazard made there club much better and contributed to them winning a champions league! For me it’s a massive fine points deduction and a transfer ban!
Click to expand...
Hazard didn't win the champions league at chelsea, he joined in the summer after chelsea had won it 2012.
After completing due diligence, the new owners had to come clean about the previous owner
 
TheGhost said:
I think the other big 5 clubs have probably got deep enough pockets to pay for the legal fees. The fees will be a relatively small percentage of their overall income. But for the smaller clubs, who gain little from dispute whatever the outcome, it will be much more difficult to swallow.

Who’s going to be the first of the smaller clubs to break ranks and explicitly say they were forced into this by the cartel and they’re really pissed off about it? This could cause huge rifts in the League and City should be doing all they can to exploit this to build a power base. How do we throw these clubs a bone?
Click to expand...
With brown envelopes?
 
I’ve always felt that the only serious question was whether we falsely declared equity support as sponsorship and that all the other charges were the PL’s insurance. That is, they knew the false accounting case was weak so they added the others just to try to justify the whole bang shoot. Really stupid and they could get just what they deserve, a big fat raspberry.
 
Yes I fear the media will say it us continuing the legal threat whereas in reality they started it.
We actually agree that the legal costs would be better in the pockets of the clubs so all they have to do is make all their rules that affect us legal.
Simple really.
 
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