PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Citizen of Legoland said:
They’re just offering a free bet to anyone who bet a team would win the league (but who then came second to City) for the last 8 times we won it. It’s just a sales ploy.

There’s nothing wrong with that if that’s what they want to do. The video ad seems to take the piss out of other teams’ fans as well. City can’t do anything about it because they would have to prove something we’re all waiting for and it’s just not worth it. That said, it probably won’t go unnoticed and I am certain that things will happen should the verdict go in
Click to expand...
Fair enough yes In understand it’s a marketing ploy and some of the ones they do are very good (lawyers outside the Etihad)
But for me this one is too close to the mark and implies guilt ( giving monetary refunds for a number of years)
With this advert PP are certainly no friend of the club and should be treated as such
 
St Helens Blue (Exiled) said:
People getting rattled by paddy power makes me laugh. It's actually quite funny what they do yet people are paranoid it's just us. It certainly isn't. They only tend to not take the piss out of the scousers
Click to expand...
So they are contemptible cowards then? I would grant them some respect if they treated everyone evenhandedly.
 
Norman kneejerk said:
Also I'm not sure to what extent you can take someone aback by springing new evidence. I thought it all had to be pre submitted or does that only apply to the prosecution, not sure.
Click to expand...

That's fair enough. But I have this thought in the back of my mind that something significant is going on that we don't know about. The "taken aback" comment could have been a sign that the club was pushing an unexpectedly aggressive strategy beyond merely providing counter-evidence. But if it's just Patel, it's probably bollocks :)

I also recognise that nobody else shares this thought .....
 
slbsn said:
Patel wrote one of the worst analyses of the Everton case before the appeal I’ve seen. It was totally wrong.

The way cases like this work, there would be no big surprises. The PL will have been well aware of the scale and quality of City’s legal team, the arguments articulated in detail in correspondence before the “trial” and witness statements set out and swapped weeks before kick off. Then written openings swapped in the week or so before. So I’d say there was almost no chance of anyone being taken aback.
Click to expand...
I know the square root of fuck all and don’t pretend to know otherwise.

Couldn’t the Premier League have been “taken aback” or surprised by breadth and counter claims in City’s rebuttal. Rather than just defending the claims in the charges could City have gone on the offensive (potentially using evidence from the APT cases), accusing the Premier League and certain clubs of colluding and providing in depth evidence of this, which calls into question the rules that City are accused of breaking, which in turn the panel then needs to review.

Could this be what’s taking so long? Or will the panel only look at evidence directly related to the charges and not the ‘bigger picture’?

Also if the collusion was proved would the panel have authority to tell the Premier League to potentially charge other clubs if if it’s clear that they have broken Premier League rules? I know this is a huge can of worms that could be opened.
 
Stoned Rose said:
What this is, is the start of the “they were guilty but we just didn’t have as good as lawyers as them so city won” nonsense they’ll trot out when we twat them all over the pub.
Click to expand...

Last I saw, the Premier League brought more lawyers and more KCs to the tribunal so that's just not going to fly really.

Similarly when the costs become public, it will be impossible to argue one side had much better lawyers unless there's a massive discrepancy in the legal costs of either side.
 
nmc said:
Would you trust them to draw a line under it? I wouldn’t. If we get our foot on their throat I suggest we make them suffer.
Click to expand...
Don't get me wrong. I was just playing devils advocate, knowing the demeanour of our owners. Personally, the way I feel about the whole shit show is, I would burn the whole fucking lot down. So, maybe your second suggestion is a happy medium.
 
domalino said:
If you want people sued over a comedy sketch/joke advert you probably need a thicker skin.
Click to expand...
Yeah, this fantasy of the club suing absolutely everyone who said anything mean about us really needs to be nipped in the bud. It's not going to happen.

Let them have their fun and bet somewhere else. It's like Domino's Pizza. Their constant jokes about us are the 2nd most offensive thing they've ever done behind selling their pizza. Just don't buy from them and block their socials.
 
jamielowndes said:
Yeah, this fantasy of the club suing absolutely everyone who said anything mean about us really needs to be nipped in the bud. It's not going to happen.

Let them have their fun and bet somewhere else. It's like Domino's Pizza. Their constant jokes about us are the 2nd most offensive thing they've ever done behind selling their pizza. Just don't buy from them and block their socials.
Click to expand...

That’s easy, their adverts are fucking annoying and their pizza is absolutely vile.
 
Paddy Power rip the piss out of absolutely all of the big clubs, and do so mercilessly. I think it's hilarious tbh.

For example they have already paid out on Celtic winning the league and robbing the rangers fans in Scotland.

It's what they do.

Don't take anything they say as malicious, city-focused, indicative of the result or anything other than a drive to get clicks, punters and brand awareness. It will be the rags when they lose their first game, arsenal the same etc etc. Stop being so precious ffs
 
slbsn said:
The way cases like this work, there would be no big surprises. The PL will have been well aware of the scale and quality of City’s legal team, the arguments articulated in detail in correspondence before the “trial” and witness statements set out and swapped weeks before kick off. Then written openings swapped in the week or so before. So I’d say there was almost no chance of anyone being taken aback.
Click to expand...
The notion of a written opening being exchanged seems to me, to be totally contrary to the core principles of advocacy. Or at least advocacy as I understand it. In fact if it’s been exchanged in writing then what’s the point in articulating it to the tribunal at all, given they have read it?
 
slbsn said:
Patel wrote one of the worst analyses of the Everton case before the appeal I’ve seen. It was totally wrong.

The way cases like this work, there would be no big surprises. The PL will have been well aware of the scale and quality of City’s legal team, the arguments articulated in detail in correspondence before the “trial” and witness statements set out and swapped weeks before kick off. Then written openings swapped in the week or so before. So I’d say there was almost no chance of anyone being taken aback.
Click to expand...
They could have been taken aback when they first heard or saw the strength of our defensive arguments during the “arguments articulated in detail in correspondence before the trial”. Obviously not once the consideration of evidence began.
 
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