PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Nicholas van Whatsisface said:
You’re absolutely right - in theory.

But the PL have clearly taken a partisan approach to this case from the start, abandoning any opportunity for neutrality to stridently side with the protectionist US-owned lobby within the Clubs it represents.

The PL has clearly taken a strategic decision that this is the bloc which will shape the future direction of the League, and their interests are best served by supporting their agenda.

No doubt aided by the circumstances of Masters’ recruitment, and the raft of rejections the League received from far better qualified candidates once the reality of the role was made clear to them.

Masters is the US lobby’s man, and is doing their bidding.

Our case, and the PL’s attitude towards it, has to be viewed in this context.
Click to expand...
From what you're saying i don't think it's believed that the panel is actually independent?
 
Coatigan said:
But then should our head of communications not done their job properly regarding how and what people email?
Click to expand...
Not really.

For a start this is ten years ago and more. Were people trained to spot phishing attempts back then? People still email sensitive data today, in companies and industries that should know better, using non-encrypted and non-protected methods.
 
Coatigan said:
But then should our head of communications not done their job properly regarding how and what people email?
Click to expand...

I don't fully understand your question, but if you're referencing the content and tone of the emails that were hacked then undoubtedly there were issues. But ultimately CAS reviewed them, in the context of all of the financial evidence and were satisfied there was no wrong doing. But you stop people from viewing the emails in the first place.

If you leave your front door unlocked and left a load of cash on the kitchen table hidden from sight to anyone outside of the house, I think the starting point is to blame whoever didn't lock the door!
 
Nicholas van Whatsisface said:
You’re absolutely right - in theory.

But the PL have clearly taken a partisan approach to this case from the start, abandoning any opportunity for neutrality to stridently side with the protectionist US-owned lobby within the Clubs it represents.

The PL has clearly taken a strategic decision that this is the bloc which will shape the future direction of the League, and their interests are best served by supporting their agenda.

No doubt aided by the circumstances of Masters’ recruitment, and the raft of rejections the League received from far better qualified candidates once the reality of the role was made clear to them.

Masters is the US lobby’s man, and is doing their bidding.

Our case, and the PL’s attitude towards it, has to be viewed in this context.
Click to expand...
You state all that as universally accepted fact yet people that don't have an affiliation with City wouldn't agree. You seem to have lurched from relating the facts of conversations that took place over the last few weeks to mere theories.
 
Centurions said:
Surely they'll still have to comply with PSR up until it's replaced (the last 2 seasons plus this 1?), although I can't see how they manage the transition. Can they just pretend PSR didn't exist and start from scratch?

They're also talking about this "top to bottom anchoring (TBA)" which "caps the amount any club can spend as a multiple of the income earned by the league's bottom side", so £140mill (2023-24 season) x 3 say, gives us £420mill max to spend on transfers, wages & agent fees which would hamper the top 6 clubs but of course the rest (including Newcastle) couldn't afford that anyway if the 85% applies too. The relegated clubs in 2023-24 would have had just a £120mill spend limit.

I can't see how any of this helps to "level out the playing field", I think football is fucked no matter how you look at it.
Click to expand...
Its not intended to level out the playing field and if anything else widens the gap. Newcastle revenue for last season was less than half of what the rags have reported & with the amended APT rules handicapping them, how are they meant to close that gap.

Although a lot of these rules wouldn't be in place if Sheikh Mansour hadn't invested in us, we are in the right place at the right time.
 
Gingers Dad said:
From what you're saying i don't think it's believed that the panel is actually independent?
Click to expand...

I’m not necessarily saying that.

I don’t have a clear view on the individuals on the panel to comment on their neutrality, but I have no specific reason to doubt their independence.

But certainly the PL’s approach in bringing these charges was partisan, lacked balance, and was - in my opinion - intended to satisfy the lobby of Clubs I’m referencing.
 
So there was generally a high level of confidence that September would be the month for some sort of verdict/announcement. Now that has come and gone, what are the thoughts on October?
 
Nicholas van Whatsisface said:
I’m not necessarily saying that.

I don’t have a clear view on the individuals on the panel to comment on their neutrality, but I have no specific reason to doubt their independence.

But certainly the PL’s approach in bringing these charges was partisan, lacked balance, and was - in my opinion - intended to satisfy the lobby of Clubs I’m referencing.
Click to expand...
The PL have continually used the term independent
 
Gingers Dad said:
Still a mystery to me as to why the PL would want to prevail. They suspected one of their members was not abiding by the rules and started an investigation. They then farmed it out to an independent panel to make a judgement.
I would have thought that the panel coming back with a decision there was no wrong doing on City's part, would be a much more satisfactory conclusion for the PL.
Click to expand...
If thats the case then they will be appealing the findings like the pigs ear they made of the case against Leicester
 
blueste41 said:
You state all that as universally accepted fact yet people that don't have an affiliation with City wouldn't agree. You seem to have lurched from relating the facts of conversations that took place over the last few weeks to mere theories.
Click to expand...

These are my opinions, so yes - they are theories.

I’ve not presented them as being the result of any conversations I’ve had with anyone better informed on the case than me.

I’m hoping people can tell the difference between a post that explicitly says: ‘these are views that were related to me by people from the PL’, and the above, which has no such reference.

But if that’s not clear - then please consider the post you’re quoting to be entirely my own work, and not the result of any recent conversations I’ve had with anyone.
 
supercity88 said:
I don't fully understand your question, but if you're referencing the content and tone of the emails that were hacked then undoubtedly there were issues. But ultimately CAS reviewed them, in the context of all of the financial evidence and were satisfied there was no wrong doing. But you stop people from viewing the emails in the first place.

If you leave your front door unlocked and left a load of cash on the kitchen table hidden from sight to anyone outside of the house, I think the starting point is to blame whoever didn't lock the door!
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's the thing about whataboutery though. It tends to go on and round in circles. Which was my point.
 
Nicholas van Whatsisface said:
You’re absolutely right - in theory.

But the PL have clearly taken a partisan approach to this case from the start, abandoning any opportunity for neutrality to stridently side with the protectionist US-owned lobby within the Clubs it represents.

The PL has clearly taken a strategic decision that this is the bloc which will shape the future direction of the League, and their interests are best served by supporting their agenda.

No doubt aided by the circumstances of Masters’ recruitment, and the raft of rejections the League received from far better qualified candidates once the reality of the role was made clear to them.

Masters is the US lobby’s man, and is doing their bidding.

Our case, and the PL’s attitude towards it, has to be viewed in this context.
Click to expand...

Good analogy about US lobby man, as you can see how that country operates now that the billionaire class think it’s better to have a loyal fool than a competent lawful operator.
 
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