PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

homerdog said:
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.
Click to expand...
Cunts.
 
Stoned Rose said:
I wonder if we would consider doing the same? That investigation stopped us buying a player we were clearly after.
Click to expand...
It could be argued that was the reason we didn’t get Slab Head

We’d look ridiculous pursuing for damages using him as the precedent lol


Having said that he was half decent before the remnants of the Bobby Charlton Soccer School got their hands on him
 
Two and a half fucking years we've been called cheats on every social media platform, every print paper, every football magazine and every fucking sports broadcast (TV and radio) and still fuck all has come out.

Absolute fucking disgrace.

From the start this was a pre-meditated attack on our owners by the PL and the whole fabric of the football media industry.

I fucking hope and pray that we've got some proof of colusion by the American Owners FA and the PL.

Cunts.
 
Stoned Rose said:
I wonder if we would consider doing the same? That investigation stopped us buying a player we were clearly after.
Click to expand...
I haven't read of all it yet - it is very very long - but there doesn't seem to be any angle for a claim by WH or LP. And certainly not by City. So it will be interesting if one transpires.

A very odd approach by the FA for such a serious charge to not appoint an external firm of solicitors and to not provide an independent expert supporting their case. But that just means losing was more likely not that there was no case to answer or that it was in some way a frivolous action.

The PL can't be said to have approached City the same way. If anything their general approach has been to double and triple up on barristers, experts and solicitors as we see in all their cases.

It does re-enforce how hard it is to prove such cases.
 
Last edited:
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...
Heard from a very reliable friend that Wirtz was done to City until liverpool offered 13 million more to his dad who manages him.
City offered 7 mill agent fees
Scousers offered 20 mill agent fees.
May not be true but only sharing what I have been told. Nowt to do with 115. Glad we didn't get him because he has been utter gash for Liverpool from what I have seen. Possibly would have suited Peps style more than Slots but we will never know.
 
thegoatsthegoat said:
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.
Click to expand...

Our play isn’t too slow if it puts the striker into positions they should score & we’ve had plenty of them.
Warnock always talks about when he thought his team was doing well against City then 5 mins later he’s 3 down.
 
pudge said:
Those people just had products to sell
Click to expand...
Yes. One of them in particular is one of, what I call, those “opportunistic City fans”

Sorry, had to jump in here. It’s one thing fans of rivals posting fake news about the verdict, it’s to be expected of them and I have no real problem with it, but City fans tweeting made up lies and clear nonsense, at the exact same time as they happen to have goods to sell is despicable.
 
deano ou812 said:
So technically us going for and possibly signing paqueta and then these allegations come out about him and we back off,is it a coincidence that our interest in signing him suddenly seen these allegations come to light hmmmm..
Click to expand...
I imagine there was an investigation going on prior to the interest but because of a potential move it came to light
 
slbsn said:
I haven't read of all it yet - it is very very long - but there doesn't seem to be any angle for a claim by WH or LP. And certainly not by City. So it will be interesting if one transpires.

A very odd approach by the FA for such a serious charge to not appoint an external firm of solicitors and to not provide an independent expert supporting their case. But that just means losing was more likely not that there was no case to answer or that it was in some way a frivolous action.

The PL can't be said to have approached City the same way. If anything their general approach has been to double and triple up on barristers, experts and solicitors as we see in all their cases.

It does re-enforce how hard it is to prove such cases.
Click to expand...

Conversely, presumably, doubling and tripling up on barristers doesn't suggest that there is a case to answer or that the action isn't frivolous?

But yes, you would think that, with the lack of any real investigative powers, it's nearly impossible to prove such cases unless guilt is admitted by the defendant or the complainant has some witness directly involved in the alleged offence. Neither of which is at all likely to happen with any of the allegations in the 115 case.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Conversely, presumably, doubling and tripling up on barristers doesn't suggest that there is a case to answer or that the action isn't frivolous?

But yes, you would think that, with the lack of any real investigative powers, it's nearly impossible to prove such cases unless guilt is admitted by the defendant or the complainant has some witness directly involved in the alleged offence. Neither of which is at all likely to happen with any of the allegations in the 115 case.
Click to expand...

At the risk of replying to myself like a lunatic, I suppose that is the quandary for the FA and the PL. What do they do if someone doesn't admit guilt and doesn't cooperate with an investigation?

They don't have the powers to force evidence from third parties so they either have to charge and lose because there is insufficient evidence or not charge and reward potentially serious behaviour for which they have some, but not enough, evidence.

I have said before that I think this is the situation in which the PL found themselves in February 2023. My heart breaks for the cunts.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Conversely, presumably, doubling and tripling up on barristers doesn't suggest that there is a case to answer or that the action isn't frivolous?

But yes, you would think that, with the lack of any real investigative powers, it's nearly impossible to prove such cases unless guilt is admitted by the defendant or the complainant has some witness directly involved in the alleged offence. Neither of which is at all likely to happen with any of the allegations in the 115 case.
Click to expand...
Yes the two things are separate. The PL will not make a mistake like not bringing an expert in all likelihood. To be honest, any case lasting months is unlikely to be considered frivolous.

Nearly impossible is overplaying a little.
 
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