PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

slbsn said:
Very good idea is not KNOW. And I KNOW they don't KNOW of even some of the fundamental questions.
Click to expand...
Utter nonsense.

City have sat through the evidence. If the evidence on any particular charge is such that it is obvious City have or haven’t breached the rules, it will be obvious to any legal representative, as well as City’s higher ups, which conclusion the panel will draw. Especially if, as City claim, we have irrefutable evidence.

And let’s be realistic here - if we’re talking about “knowing” if City have breached on any given charge, I’m absolutely convinced City themselves and their legal representatives will definitely “know” if they have or not, even without this investigation and/or some panel concluding so.

It’s also likely that as it’s gone along, if City have breached on any given charge, and this is obvious, they may well acknowledge the breach and essentially, plead to it. The same could be said the opposite way round - ie, we provide irrefutable evidence and the PL say ok we’ll accept that and essentially drop that charge and waste no further time on it. If this has happened, city will clearly “know” this has happened.

The only areas City might be unclear on are the charges where it’s not clear as to whether we have breached or not. They could go either way, but even on these charges, the legal representatives will be experienced and learned enough to have a very good idea how the panel will conclude.

The way your presenting it is that City and their legal have sat through weeks of evidence and come out on the final day, debriefed and Pannick has gone “fuck knows Khaldoon mate, couldn’t say mate, but let’s hope for the best eh?”. Which is clearly not going to be the case.
 
Last edited:
To the clever people who have a knowledge of the rules and legal issues.
My question refers to if we are exonerated from the main charges that amount to Gross corporate fraud and false accounting but are found liable to some of the lesser charges

Would City not sue the Premier League for accusing the owner and senior management of such terrible offences.
Their reputation having been tarnished .
Or at least want a considerable sum and apology.

Or would they use the leverage as mitigation for the non compliance and other minor transgressions they may find in favour of the Premier League.
 
BAB.DAB said:
www.dailymail.co.uk

Pep Guardiola takes aim at rival after Premier League charges

JACK GAUGHAN: Pep Guardiola launched an extraordinarily defiant defence of Manchester City in the wake of an unprecedented number of Premier League charges against them.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk
Pep warned them to be careful
Click to expand...
Guardiola – who referenced innocence on 10 separate occasions – was angry that the court of public opinion has already passed judgement on City, even if legal experts have this week predicted the case could take up to four years.

Only 15 months to go.
 
birchwoodgingerste said:
Probably nonsense but hope its true.
Click to expand...
I saw that earlier. And it makes my blood boil to the extent I risk a stroke.

I can easily accept fans of rivals glorying in this 115 bollocks, and using it as a stick to beat us with. I would do exactly the same if it happened to them. No problem.

What makes me angrier than is good for me is supposed ‘City fans’ - and never moreso than when they, as this knobhead has, accompany their City fan bona fides with the fakest Manc accent ever heard - who use the 115 bollocks to garner hits and interactions to their shit social media ‘business’. This **** is using the 115 as a means to make money out of all our distress and it is not on.

I’m not a violent man, not had a fight for over 35 years (and I lost that one, badly), but if I bumped into this **** on the street I’d have to work very hard not to twat the wanker.

Utter wanker. (Him, not you for posting it!)
 
Stoned Rose said:
Utter nonsense.

City have sat through the evidence. If the evidence on any particular charge is such that it is obvious City have or haven’t breached the rules, it will be obvious to any legal representative, as well as City’s higher ups, which conclusion the panel will draw. Especially if, as City claim, we have irrefutable evidence.

And let’s be realistic here - if we’re talking about “knowing” if City have breached on any given charge, I’m absolutely convinced City themselves and their legal representatives will definitely “know” if they have or not, even without this investigation and/or some panel concluding so.

It’s also likely that as it’s gone along, if City have breached on any given charge, and this is obvious, they may well acknowledge the breach and essentially, plead to it. The same could be said the opposite way round - ie, we provide irrefutable evidence and the PL say ok we’ll accept that and essentially drop that charge and waste no further time on it. If this has happened, city will clearly “know” this has happened.

The only areas City might be unclear on are the charges where it’s not clear as to whether we have breached or not. They could go either way, but even on these charges, the legal representatives will be experienced and learned enough to have a very good idea how the panel will conclude.

The way your presenting it is that City and their legal have sat through weeks of evidence and come out on the final day, debriefed and Pannick has gone “fuck knows Khaldoon mate, couldn’t say mate, but let’s hope for the best eh?”. Which is clearly not going to be the case.
Click to expand...
Comfort yourself however you like. What I’ve written is fact on not just based on generalisations. City are confident but not certain or complacent.
 
Stoned Rose said:
Utter nonsense.

City have sat through the evidence. If the evidence on any particular charge is such that it is obvious City have or haven’t breached the rules, it will be obvious to any legal representative, as well as City’s higher ups, which conclusion the panel will draw. Especially if, as City claim, we have irrefutable evidence.

And let’s be realistic here - if we’re talking about “knowing” if City have breached on any given charge, I’m absolutely convinced City themselves and their legal representatives will definitely “know” if they have or not, even without this investigation and/or some panel concluding so.

It’s also likely that as it’s gone along, if City have breached on any given charge, and this is obvious, they may well acknowledge the breach and essentially, plead to it. The same could be said the opposite way round - ie, we provide irrefutable evidence and the PL say ok we’ll accept that and essentially drop that charge and waste no further time on it. If this has happened, city will clearly “know” this has happened.

The only areas City might be unclear on are the charges where it’s not clear as to whether we have breached or not. They could go either way, but even on these charges, the legal representatives will be experienced and learned enough to have a very good idea how the panel will conclude.

The way your presenting it is that City and their legal have sat through weeks of evidence and come out on the final day, debriefed and Pannick has gone “fuck knows Khaldoon mate, couldn’t say mate, but let’s hope for the best eh?”. Which is clearly not going to be the case.
Click to expand...
It’s absurd.

After the hearing, the 3 man panel have not locked themselves away in a room after a 12 week hearing. They will have multiple staff aiding the final written decision. They most probably went back and forth to both the league and city looking for clarification.

To openly state that Pannick said to city” erm think it went ok bruv” and haven't spoken since last December is as mental as it sounds.

Dropping this without allowing both sides to view is also a harsh take on proceedings. Why take so much care writing the piece up to then dump it?

None of it makes sense, that’s football for you. City is well aware of each allegation having gone through CAS. Nothing new apart from Fordham and Bobby getting a couple of pound extra.

The league no matter how this is dressed up is and has been severely compromised by certain clubs to serve their own greed and fear of competition.

We know that the club has tried to circumvent bullshit rules, we know the league has acted in bad faith. Apt has shown that and we know the media has been complicit to accuse and sell this agenda.

Anyway, see you tomorrow for another round of bullseye -:)
 
Last edited:
asahartford1 said:
To the clever people who have a knowledge of the rules and legal issues.
My question refers to if we are exonerated from the main charges that amount to Gross corporate fraud and false accounting but are found liable to some of the lesser charges

Would City not sue the Premier League for accusing the owner and senior management of such terrible offences.
Their reputation having been tarnished .
Or at least want a considerable sum and apology.

Or would they use the leverage as mitigation for the non compliance and other minor transgressions they may find in favour of the Premier League.
Click to expand...
No

I’m not legally informed but I distinctly remember someone knowledgable posting a while back that there is almost zero chance of city seeking recourse against the PL for the accusations
 
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