PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Nicholas van Whatsisface]

That’s not true but if someone thinks they can come on here & say they’ve been told by senior people from PL that they’re confident they’ve won the biggest case in football history, they must be very naive if they think they wouldn’t be asked for more information on the leaks.

And if someone seriously thinks they can expect a poster to divulge names, dates, locations, contexts for conversations about something like this with no consideration of the personal or professional repercussions of doing so - just to satisfy the curiosity of someone they’ve never even met before, and whose name they don’t even know - then they must be spectacularly naive to expect anything other than a clear and unequivocal ‘no’ in response.

 

[Stoned Rose]

Senior people always acting with the utmost professionalism and propriety in all situations and contexts.

Yeah, mate.

Are you going to tell us who they are? leak this to the media?

 

[Didsbury Dave]

And why do you think that is mate. Citys owners have come in and done everything they said they were going to do, they have been roundly mocked by the press, by the other cartels managers, fans etc and continued to build a world class outfit which is the envy of many and something most clubs seek to replicate even to the point of appointing our executives and copying our ideas. The PL on the other hand have presided over fuck up after fuck up under the behest of a person that was fourth choice for the job and been told by a parliamentary committee that it would seem he doesnt know what he is doing, not to mention implementing illegal rules and going over clubs for spurious charges that have been roundly thrown out while circumventing the rules for other clubs.

Ask yourself one which one would you trust a signal from?

I agree with all that. But every single premier league football club has been investing heavily in putting in place "workarounds" for these rules since their inception. It's no different to tax planning. The issue is whether we can provide enough evidence that they are workarounds. It's not black and white, never has been. That's why it's got as far as it has.

 

[Stoned Rose]

Yes. A little gratuitous. Nothing at all about the standard of proof and how difficult it will be for the PL to meet it but 1,000 words on the implications if the allegations are proven.

Interesting that he specifically says there may be a connection between the APT and the 115 cases.

Also interesting that he didn't mention at all about this being an award on liability only.

He either knows something or, more likely, he doesn't know anything.

Also why do all lawyers look like complete cunts. Present company excepted, of course.

I’m pretty sure @slbsn has argued there’s no connection?

 

[Didsbury Dave]

They might read this site?

He's not going to provide names, nor should he. Tolmie doesn't either. He puts names on here, they end up on Twitter, they do the rounds and he's stuck in a very embarrassing position. I've had info myself in the past and you don't name names if you want to ever get info again.

 

[Nicholas van Whatsisface]

They might read this site?

I have no idea.

But I do know that client journalists of clubs who have an interest in perpetuating this narrative definitely do read this site, so if I start plastering names and contexts about - it wouldn’t be that difficult to trace that back to me.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Okay lets say there was no deal, if city were certain that the pl had them bang to rights why would they not try and broker a deal with the pl, we are talking about world class businessman here who are pragmatic and smart and will do what is in their best interests, we arent talking about chancers here. IF the evidence was there do you not think at least one of the co conspirators would have brokered something to save their own skin as we arent talking about a slap on the wrist here, we are talking jail time for criminal offences.

I don't think it's worth discussing, quite frankly. The ins and outs of the case aren't circulating around the PL like confetti at a wedding. And the few people who know what is going on have been very careful to say nothing. Ever. They aren't telling anyone anything, inside the PL or out of it, imho.

 

[Nicholas van Whatsisface]

Are you going to tell us who they are? leak this to the media?

No.

On both counts.

 

[horlock_was_super]

Did the PL actually offer City a deal though?

There’s absolutely no credible evidence to suggest they did - or at least not that I’ve ever seen.

Your second point is right though, and I did reflect that in my post.

They come across as a colossally arrogant and entitled organisation, so then being overconfident based on nothing more than their own lofty opinions of themselves would be entirely consistent with all that bluster and bravado.

Could you not have just kicked them in the bollocks?

 

[mancboy]

I agree with all that. But every single premier league football club has been investing heavily in putting in place "workarounds" for these rules since their inception. It's no different to tax planning. The issue is whether we can provide enough evidence that they are workarounds. It's not black and white, never has been. That's why it's got as far as it has.

I would say they have to provide evidence that our accounts werent accurate rather than us having to provide evidence that they werent and like i said in my previous post IF every club has been using workarounds its suspicious that our club was the only club that required a forensic multi year investigation into our accounts going back decades and every other club is squeaky clean.

As i said IF they prove anything it throws into chaos their own checks and balances and we should assume that literally every club is shady as they also accepted their accounts as accurate and every club should then receive the same investigation, whatever way this goes the PL has shown itself to be not fit for purpose.

 

[blue cigar]

I don’t post this lightly, but having spent the last few days with a couple of people in very senior positions at the PL - they are certainly feeling very confident in their position.

You’d expect that, to a point - and clearly this would only be of note or concern if we are to assume either the result has landed with both City and the PL already ahead of publication, and they are therefore reflecting an informed view - or if, given its imminence, the relevant parties have an early impression of the broad direction the ruling is going to take.

On this - it’s worth reiterating that @slbsn has been pretty clear that he has been told, as of close of play on Friday, neither party had received the result - so I’m hoping he’s right on that, as in that context the views relayed to me could simply be evidence of a general level of bravado/confidence/arrogance on behalf of the PL ahead of publication, and not indicative of any specific knowledge.

It’s also worth saying that I don’t know these people well, so whilst certain comments definitely felt more indiscreet than others - they could also simply be holding an agreed/mandated company line or corporate position on the charges which don’t indicate anything of substance either way.

But I find this unlikely, as I’d expect the company line would be to say nothing - and to hold that they are waiting for the panel to arrive at its judgement before making any substantive comments on the situation.

That said, they were definitely very bullish in tone, and dismissed any view that City’s position on the charges held any credibility whatsoever.

So you were with them but didn't ask what they were basing their confidence on??I would have thought that's question number one, if I told you it was going to snow at the weekend I'd expect to be asked how I know that.
Add to that the fact Stefan likes to deal in facts so there is no reason to doubt his comment that neither side has heard by Friday evening, I have to assume this is in fact bollocks.

 

[mancboy]

I don't think it's worth discussing, quite frankly. The ins and outs of the case aren't circulating around the PL like confetti at a wedding. And the few people who know what is going on have been very careful to say nothing. Ever. They aren't telling anyone anything, inside the PL or out of it, imho.

Im just playing devils advocate here because basically all this has kicked off from someone with zero credentials saying something highly speculative with zero context and then refusing to provide any context which then just really amounts to screaming i want attention.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

He's reporting something on a forum in good faith which is what we are all deperate for. That's not "Protecting low life". Just because people don't like what the implications are there's no need for people to attack him.

To anyone who pays any attention @Nicholas van Whatsisface is plainly a very accomplished poster and I have no doubt he is faithfully posting what he was told.

That said, if they work for the PL then they are definitely a pair of cunts.

 

[halfcenturyup]

I’m pretty sure @slbsn has argued there’s no connection?

Oh, you.

 

[.db.]

I don’t post this lightly, but having spent the last few days with a couple of people in very senior positions at the PL - they are certainly feeling very confident in their position.

You’d expect that, to a point - and clearly this would only be of note or concern if we are to assume either the result has landed with both City and the PL already ahead of publication, and they are therefore reflecting an informed view - or if, given its imminence, the relevant parties have an early impression of the broad direction the ruling is going to take.

On this - it’s worth reiterating that @slbsn has been pretty clear that he has been told, as of close of play on Friday, neither party had received the result - so I’m hoping he’s right on that, as in that context the views relayed to me could simply be evidence of a general level of bravado/confidence/arrogance on behalf of the PL ahead of publication, and not indicative of any specific knowledge.

It’s also worth saying that I don’t know these people well, so whilst certain comments definitely felt more indiscreet than others - they could also simply be holding an agreed/mandated company line or corporate position on the charges which don’t indicate anything of substance either way.

But I find this unlikely, as I’d expect the company line would be to say nothing - and to hold that they are waiting for the panel to arrive at its judgement before making any substantive comments on the situation.

That said, they were definitely very bullish in tone, and dismissed any view that City’s position on the charges held any credibility whatsoever.

This thread needed a post like this. Discussion had disappeared and posts were getting boring.

 

[CC1]

And if someone seriously thinks they can expect a poster to divulge names, dates, locations, contexts for conversations about something like this with no consideration of the personal or professional repercussions of doing so - just to satisfy the curiosity of someone they’ve never even met before, and whose name they don’t even know - then they must be spectacularly naive to expect anything other than a clear and unequivocal ‘no’ in response.

Well you’ve spectacularly repeated something I guess you were told in confidence by these SENIOR people from the PL without considering that they might see your comments on - what is after all - a public forum. Even if they don’t read it, someone else in the PL might alert the organisation about the “leaks”

Additionally as I’ve said before - you can’t blame Bluemoon regulars for wanting more definitive information on what is the biggest case in football history. -& which you are hinting we might have lost!!

Even info on what they said - doesn’t need names or details of the people who have leaked such hugely important information- is obviously going to be requested

Or did you think we’d just read such important information and then shrug shoulders & move on.

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

He's not going to provide names, nor should he. Tolmie doesn't either. He puts names on here, they end up on Twitter, they do the rounds and he's stuck in a very embarrassing position. I've had info myself in the past and you don't name names if you want to ever get info again.

I think if they are reading Bluemoon they already know who they are who he is from what he has said.

Bit crazy this.

 

[CC1]

Are you going to tell us who they are? leak this to the media?

Media would love it :-)

 

[give it to gordon]

So the pl believe the sovereign of a Arab state is a fraudster, Khaldoon who operates at the top top level of the business world is a fraudster. Our accountants are fraudster. Our sponsors are fraudsters. I find it hard to believe this.
Yet to big hitters from the main force behind these charges have quit or been removed seems abit odd

 

[ayrshire_blue]

But you’ll post about on here? Knowing full well you aren’t willing to back any of it up?

Wummage. Should be banned for a month.

But if he posted he heard that they're not confident (the PL) it would be a "soft signal" and everyone becoming ecstatic over it?

It has to work both ways, Shirley?