PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

The perfect fumble said:
Click to expand...

Always interesting to hear the same information using different words and tone.

City is viewed differently due to the narrative pushed by uefa and the premier league. Any sporting merit is tarnished, any transfer spend scrutinised and remarked with a “financial cheat” caveat.

The view has been shoved down our throats by a rabid media.

City is not guilty of fraud as per CAS. After said case we continue to build a stadia and a new team on the pitch. City also played a straight bat with uefa and they proceeded to shift the goalposts. We were not going to put ourselves in that position again.

The dispute arena is created by the league and carried out by the league using their own rules that clubs must adhere to. independent panel? How independent is a personal opinion.

I don’t agree that city should have a shadow hanging over us at every opportunity. We win a league, quick financial cheats, we buy players, off the book payments.

Accused for eternity without any evidence. I agree with pep. All clubs who win spend money. It’s that’s simple. It’s has striking similarities with an abuser through the courts. The victims name is destroyed while the abuser can’t be named for legal reasons, after 3/4/5 years the case might be heard or more than likely the case settled before court.

The accused is still ruined. Show us the fraud? Where are the 115 documents?
 
pepguardiola'smoustache said:
He did on several occasions,
a quick search tells me on 14th november he said

"Clearly, I think we are beyond prime verdict territory. Especially so if it doesn't come next week. Beyond that I would say we are in overdue territory."
Click to expand...

That doesn’t prove what you’re claiming.

Stefan has said multiple times that these verdicts can drag on for years, you can use the search function to find that.


The difference between 13 months when he wrote that and 15 months is completely insignificant and doesn’t change the fact we’re not outside a normal timeline, it just means were at the longer end of things.
 
domalino said:
That doesn’t prove what you’re claiming.

Stefan has said multiple times that these verdicts can drag on for years, you can use the search function to find that.


The difference between 13 months when he wrote that and 15 months is completely insignificant and doesn’t change the fact we’re not outside a normal timeline, it just means were at the longer end of things.
Click to expand...
Eh?

You stated

domalino said:
Everything we've heard from @slbsn has suggested this is an entirely normal time frame
Click to expand...

I gave you a quote of his that says otherwise.
 
domalino said:
Everything we've heard from @slbsn has suggested this is an entirely normal time frame for really complicated legal proceedings between businesses. It's more that fooball, and football fans, aren't used to things happening on a multi year timetable.
Click to expand...


I don’t think that is true. He has made the point it’s going on longer than he expected.

8.30

 
Last edited:
pepguardiola'smoustache said:
I don't doubt it, b-j.
I have (before your welcome return to the moon) stated quite categorically that there is no delay in proceedings because at the outset no timescale was given for the outcome so there is no delay.
Click to expand...
Who were you before the name change?

Yep, I am certain I’ve heard commentators, possibly including Stefan, say before there’s no timescale and these things can go into years.

I think the general view is that the gravity of the situation for such an important industry and organisation within that, is that they’d want to try and do it efficiently.

But that doesn’t mean this will take under 18 months. It’s an unprecedented case, with documents into the millions. They have to get it right and will want to make sure they have.
 
Cobwebcat said:
I don’t think that is true now.

8.30

Click to expand...


Was that the imminent from today, the one from last summer, or the one from every media appearance in between?

That isn't a dig at @slbsn by the way, I know how media appearances work and I know how lawyers work. But to claim that he predicted this is bollocks. He has said many times that similar cases can take years in the courts but he has also said many times he has been surprised at how long it's taking. And that's OK. We have all been.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Was that the imminent from today, the one from last summer, or the one from every media appearance in between?

That isn't a dig at @slbsn by the way, I know how media appearances work and I know how lawyers work. But to claim that he predicted this is bollocks. He has said many times that similar cases can take years in the courts but he has also said many times he has been surprised at how long it's taking. And that's OK. We have all been.
Click to expand...
I don’t know what you are on about.

The claim was that Stefan never said the time taken was out of the ordinary. I posted a clip to the contrary with a time stamp which suggested otherwise in support of another poster.

If you think it’s bollocks that’s up to you but I hear something entirely different to the claim in the video.

Not that it matters one way or another.
 
Ban-jani said:
Who were you before the name change?

Yep, I am certain I’ve heard commentators, possibly including Stefan, say before there’s no timescale and these things can go into years.

I think the general view is that the gravity of the situation for such an important industry and organisation within that, is that they’d want to try and do it efficiently.

But that doesn’t mean this will take under 18 months. It’s an unprecedented case, with documents into the millions. They have to get it right and will want to make sure they have.
Click to expand...
Why do they need to scan them all?
Presumably the PL have made specific allegations regarding specific documents and our team have refused them with others.
The documents were all provided yes by both sides but a small percentage of them are relevant.
Why would the panel want to read all of them?
 
SilverFox2 said:
Why do they need to scan them all?
Presumably the PL have made specific allegations regarding specific documents and our team have refused them with others.
The documents were all provided yes by both sides but a small percentage of them are relevant.
Why would the panel want to read all of them?
Click to expand...
Why would the charges relate to specific documents they relate to actions or in actions and even if they related to specific documents you would need others to prove or disprove that nothing has proceeded or superseded those documents
 
WRicko said:
Why would the charges relate to specific documents they relate to actions or in actions and even if they related to specific documents you would need others to prove or disprove that nothing has proceeded or su perseded those documents
Click to expand...
I am saying that there are possibly millions so if pl have scanned them all they will point the panel to the relevant ones. Surely they don't say to the panel that somewhere in them there is the incriminating evidence, try and find it.
 
These matters can go on for years. For a liability decision in a private hearing (this is not court so it should not have some of the timing issues of a single judge on multiple successive cases), it should be out now.

This is only one part of the decision. The panel has had long enough. Not sure where that contradicts anything I have said previously on timeline.

And by the way, this is the view of both parties. Nobody expected to be waiting for part 1 in 2026.
 
Last edited:
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