PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Longdarnit Blue said:
The Forest issue seems to be about a disciplinary panel member having an ‘apparent bias’ against them. Lawyers sited an ‘unjustified, inappropriate and personal attack on the club’. There’s been massive bias and unjustified, inappropriate and personal attacks on our club for years.
The media are still obsessed about what will happen to us when we’re obviously found guilty rather than what might happen to the EPL when we are declared to be innocent.
The rulings highlighted by CC1: show the football authorities to be hopelessly incompetent at best.
Is it not the case that it’s becoming increasingly likely that vendetta against City will exposed and that the EPL will be forced to amend its unlawful rules to ensure fairness for the benefit of every club, not just the cartel.
Click to expand...
They’ve got away with murder for years. Changing the rules to stop our progress - or, in many cases, to help RED clubs “pass” rules. Hopefully their corruption is coming to an end
 
Last edited:
cheekybids said:
They haven’t looked good but they’ve got goals. We’ve created enough chances last 2 games to have had the game sewn up before conceding.

Haaland had 5 chances first half, 2 years ago that’s 4 goals & no one questions anything.
Click to expand...
Going back to my original point. The play is still boring and slow which is what I flagged when we was top of the league last year. I'd be questioning, although results would then be improving with goals. We aren't clinical enough you are right. A lot of this is down to our play too, allowing us to be in a position where we can be wasteful whilst still scoring.
 
thegoatsthegoat said:
True, although to come out of that Newcastle game with a win, after drawing there last year and the atmosphere was a big positive for them. Granted Newcastle had ten men and chances. Sometimes just getting out with the win is all that matters. In isolation. I despise them too, Arsenal aren't far behind so it isn't a nice position knowing it will probably be one of them two
Click to expand...
True...at least it won't be the rags though lol
 
feedmpenzaandhewillscore said:
The factors Liverpool are saying have made them be able to spend - increased matchday revenue and new kit deals. We have them coming on stream from January when the North stand is complete and the renewal with Puma which as bumped up the money. There will also be operating profits from a hotel going into the pot and with the associated parties rules being null and void we could go back to Etihad and have that deal improved.
Click to expand...
City have spent and it isn't shortage of money which has stopped us splashing more cash. I think City withdrew their interest in Wirtz possibly because he wanted Liverpool but more probably because we didn't think he was worth the asking price. In all other cases I think we got the players we wanted. But your general point is spot on, we're certainly not short of funds in case of future need!
 
StillBluessinceHydeRoad said:
City have spent and it isn't shortage of money which has stopped us splashing more cash. I think City withdrew their interest in Wirtz possibly because he wanted Liverpool but more probably because we didn't think he was worth the asking price. In all other cases I think we got the players we wanted. But your general point is spot on, we're certainly not short of funds in case of future need!
Click to expand...
And them players we wanted have slowly been of much lesser quality than the outgoing players they are replacing.
 
Remember a few months ago every supposedly well informed City fan on social media was tweeting their confidence and that we'd won and that it would be announced imminently.

Are we all still as positive given that there's been about 5 months of silence since then?
 
With the eye watering fines for coming out for kickoff late do you think the non cooperation fines could be really really big even if the main charges are won by us? The transfer business was BAU but we've not gone in full throttle. Could it be a bit of haste until we know how much we'll be fined? That's assuming the non cooperation is a given?
 
IrishBlueSince92 said:
Remember a few months ago every supposedly well informed City fan on social media was tweeting their confidence and that we'd won and that it would be announced imminently.

Are we all still as positive given that there's been about 5 months of silence since then?
Click to expand...
Would you like the honest answer?

Couldn't give a shite what happens now as it has dragged and dragged and has bored the underpants off me.

We're innocent great.

We're not, shrug of the shoulders and crack on.

Now use skriking about it, won't change nothing.

I believe we are 200% innocent by the way but the fact it has been nearly 2 and a half years is laughable.
 
Matt Diablo said:
Yes Adidas have a big part in this. Its sports brands wars as well as yank/ Arab wars too. We as fans are right in the middle of it watching an arms race underway . . .
Click to expand...

I assume Liverpool took a big chunk of the Adidas money upfront which has facilitated this years big spend but will see their income drop off slightly in future years.
 
thegoatsthegoat said:
And them players we wanted have slowly been of much lesser quality than the outgoing players they are replacing.
Click to expand...
I thought you were arguing that they should have been shown the door 2 seasons ago, or even straight after the (second) treble. I (and others) consider a senseless idea which ignores the season after when that team not only did four in a row but missed out narrowly on back-to-back doubles. And one final question: what importance do you attach to our lengthy injury list in causing our miserable season when we only came third and got to the cup final?
 
Longdarnit Blue said:
The Forest issue seems to be about a disciplinary panel member having an ‘apparent bias’ against them. Lawyers sited an ‘unjustified, inappropriate and personal attack on the club’. There’s been massive bias and unjustified, inappropriate and personal attacks on our club for years.
The media are still obsessed about what will happen to us when we’re obviously found guilty rather than what might happen to the EPL when we are declared to be innocent.
The rulings highlighted by CC1: show the football authorities to be hopelessly incompetent at best.
Is it not the case that it’s becoming increasingly likely that vendetta against City will exposed and that the EPL will be forced to amend its unlawful rules to ensure fairness for the benefit of every club, not just the cartel.
Click to expand...
Interesting that all the cartel clubs, plus Spurs, have been spending big this summer. A possible soft sign that they may not come out well from the investigation of charges made against City. The PL have already been judged that some of their rules are illegal. Some clubs have benefitted yet "nothing to see here" even after being warned and proven.

UEFA, the FA and PL have all been guilty of inconsistency or bias against some clubs in favour of others in their rules and application. Time the dodgy governance of football was exposed and media reporting with it.
 
I've posted this on the Paqueta thread, but thought it worth repeating here, as there are (hopefully) some parallels with how our case has gone. Basically, I'm hoping that the PL are as fucking usless as the FA!

Just looked at the Regulatory Commission's findings, pretty damning for the FA - seems they were mostly making it up as they went along. They had to admit that almost none of the evidence they were relying on was impartial, such as their claim that his bookings were suspicious.

The Commission said:

"we do in any event consider the suggestion that the betting patterns, said by The FA to be the cornerstone of its case, emerge from a random passing of “hot tips” or perceived “inside information” within Brazil as the more
likely explanation."

Charges that he failed to co-operate were found to be proven and this is what the FA have written on their website:

"The Regulatory Commission will decide an appropriate sanction for the breaches of FA Rule F3 that were found proven..."

However, they are clutching at straws, as the Commision had this to say:

"...allied to matters such as The FA’s unwillingness to hear what the Player had to say once he had been provided with all the information from the first interview at the start of the second interview... any sanction imposed will be at the lower end of the scale.
 
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