PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Prestwich_Blue said:
The problem is that the rules we've been charged under are very vague and subjective. How do you know when you've done something you believe is legitimate if you've failed to act in good faith?

I'm certain we didn't enter into any arrangement covered by the charges with the intent to deceive or mislead anyone.
  • The Mancini contract wasn't done to hide expenses or otherwise improve our financial reports.
  • The Fordham arrangement was to get revenue in. You could argue it was a dubious arrangement to sell IP to a seemingly connected third-party but Chelsea and others have sold tangible assets to connected parties without problems, so there was nothing intrinsically wrong with it. It wasn't done to hide expenses.
  • We really aren't sure about the sponsorship charges but CAS determined the Etihad sponsorship wasn't disguised equity investment. And if we genuinely believed it (or any other Abu Dhabi-based sponsorship) wasn't a related party then we clearly haven't attempted to deceive anyone by not declaring it as such.
There have been many instances of people believing they've done something "in good faith" where subsequent events have meant they didn't. Tax law is one such area as are the many contract and commercial disputes that have ended up in court.
Click to expand...
First line is key subjective
 
I just cannot get my head around the idea that there is some sort of delay or that's it's overdue.
When this started no timescale was suggested for the announcement, so it cannot possibly be considered late.
And this is an unprecedented situation so there's nothing else time-wise to gauge it on or compare it to.
 
pepguardiola'smoustache said:
I just cannot get my head around the idea that there is some sort of delay or that's it's overdue.
When this started no timescale was suggested for the announcement, so it cannot possibly be considered late.
And this is an unprecedented situation so there's nothing else time-wise to gauge it on or compare it to.
Click to expand...
And there never will be again when rules are scrapped
 
I have a ‘115 times better’ t-shirt I bought to support Manchester Foodbank, back near the start of the year iirc.
I’ve not worn it out and about, ever. it’s been on holidays , overnight visits around uk, many times… all in the hope that the (as it turns out) next (and hopefully final) stage of the malicious saga is reached, and something happens after aeons of nothing.

I’ll wear it out and about if we ‘win’
I’ll wear it out and about if we ‘lose’
 
Last edited:
Prestwich_Blue said:
The problem is that the rules we've been charged under are very vague and subjective. How do you know when you've done something you believe is legitimate if you've failed to act in good faith?

I'm certain we didn't enter into any arrangement covered by the charges with the intent to deceive or mislead anyone.
  • The Mancini contract wasn't done to hide expenses or otherwise improve our financial reports.
  • The Fordham arrangement was to get revenue in. You could argue it was a dubious arrangement to sell IP to a seemingly connected third-party but Chelsea and others have sold tangible assets to connected parties without problems, so there was nothing intrinsically wrong with it. It wasn't done to hide expenses.
  • We really aren't sure about the sponsorship charges but CAS determined the Etihad sponsorship wasn't disguised equity investment. And if we genuinely believed it (or any other Abu Dhabi-based sponsorship) wasn't a related party then we clearly haven't attempted to deceive anyone by not declaring it as such.
There have been many instances of people believing they've done something "in good faith" where subsequent events have meant they didn't. Tax law is one such area as are the many contract and commercial disputes that have ended up in court.
Click to expand...
But for the really serious charge, aren't we accused of something far more deliberate and sinister than a simple misunderstanding over good faith?

In this instance, regardless of the ultimate verdict,. Khaldoon would surely have some idea of what really did happen

He's been very confident, bordering on smug, when interviewed by Chris Bailey
Let's hope that he had every right to be relaxed and confident
 
Scaring Europe to Death said:
But for the really serious charge, aren't we accused of something far more deliberate and sinister than a simple misunderstanding over good faith?

In this instance, regardless of the ultimate verdict,. Khaldoon would surely have some idea of what really did happen

He's been very confident, bordering on smug, when interviewed by Chris Bailey
Let's hope that he had every right to be relaxed and confident
Click to expand...
Maybe he has thrown the office junior to the Lions like the Labour Party does.
 
Mirror article derived from a delooney delusion devoid of any new information

www.independent.co.uk

What’s behind the delay in Man City’s 115 Premier League charges?

Despite another flurry of international break rumours that an outcome was ‘imminent’, the game is still waiting. Miguel Delaney explores the saga and its wider implications in the latest edition of Inside Football
www.independent.co.uk www.independent.co.uk
 
Last edited:
If we can take anything from any of this with any certainty it's that journalism is dead, they shouldn't even have an education to be taught the way to do journalism right.

It's an embarrassment really.

Might as well state that the results have been held up by inclement weather or a rabid Panda from Scunthorpe broke into the car holding the verdict and ate in all.
 
mexico1970 said:
Might as well state that the results have been held up by inclement weather
Click to expand...
When emails first came about mine was clement.weather@

After that, it became quite the thing whenever we met in the pub to come up with some...

frank.admission@
baz.matty@
cliff.hanger@
helen.back@
hugh.jars@
norman.keep@
vinnie.garrette@
polly.gammy@
sally.vates@
egburt.nobacon@
chas.tittybelt@
carmen.peaceful@
warren.peace@
connie.lingus@


etc. etc. hours of fun.
 
pepguardiola'smoustache said:
When emails first came about mine was clement.weather@

After that, it became quite the thing whenever we met in the pub to come up with some...

frank.admission@
baz.matty@
cliff.hanger@
helen.back@
hugh.jars@
norman.keep@
vinnie.garrette@
polly.gammy@
sally.vates@
egburt.nobacon@
chas.tittybelt@
carmen.peaceful@
warren.peace@
connie.lingus@


etc. etc. hours of fun.
Click to expand...
When Pete Townshend used to check into hotels, he used the name Roland Butter
 
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