PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

pudge said:
In all seriousness though, surely if we're found not liable then there'll be no appeal from the league? Wouldn't that be the best outcome for both parties sure
Click to expand...
It’ll save the Premier League’s product and return us to some normality. But it’ll be terrible for those in the PL, who pushed for these charges, Masters in particular.
 
Whilst the formal verdict is not in, how have City persuaded so many players to sign contracts/ extensions?

If you were Guehi, and you had 4-5 clubs chasing your signature, why choose City if we potentially have a relegation sentence hanging over their heads? City must have a convincing way of addressing such fears.
 
Marvin. said:
Whilst the formal verdict is not in, how have City persuaded so many players to sign contracts/ extensions?

If you were Guehi, and you had 4-5 clubs chasing your signature, why choose City if we potentially have a relegation sentence hanging over their heads? City must have a convincing way of addressing such fears.
Click to expand...
Exactly, they will be surely saying with a lot of confidence that we haven’t done what is accused and whilst the verdict isn’t in yet, we know we haven’t done it and the case went very well to prove that.

For me, the new North Stand complex and all these signings and extensions to big names already here, tells me City think they’ve won.
 
Colin Bells Boots said:
Khaldoon clearly knows that Trump is a stupid and arrogant ****, but is determined to milk the US for as much as possible.

The " Board Of Peace" is an absolutely perverse oxymoron when considering the position that Trump holds within the organisation.

An egotist and 100% physcopath who is so focussed on massaging his own ego that he surroundeds by yes men/women as deranged and pathetic as himself.

The stupidity of this shitshow cannot be understated, but there is a serious undercurrent which should not be overlooked.

Trump believes that he is so fucking clever, but there are many more who are nicely positioned to make the most of Donald's ego and stupidity, and that is a very satisfying thought.

And the moronic element is so appropriate when watching the ramblings of a total uber **** who reduces the status of the post of the President of the US into a shameful and unstatesmanlike era never witnessed before.
Click to expand...
It’s probably the case that no country in the Middle East can afford to remain outside the “Board of Peace,” as doing so would risk losing influence over the peace plans for Gaza and the broader Middle East. It’s a bit like the Super League situation.

As for Khaldoon, he is not personally a member of the Board of Peace; he was merely standing in for the UAE Minister of State for International Cooperation, HE Reem Al-Hashimy, who was not in Davos. She is a member of the Gaza Executive Board.
 
pudge said:
In all seriousness though, surely if we're found not liable then there'll be no appeal from the league? Wouldn't that be the best outcome for both parties sure
Click to expand...
Depends how bad the hearing was for the PL. If they've come out of it looking like this was a politically motivated attack by the red-shirt cartel then they're not going to want to look any worse. I still believe that one of the main reasons for the delay is that this is in fact the case and they're trying to find a way of framing the outcome to save face.

Even if that's not the case, if Delaney's piece was anything to go by, there seems to be a significant body of opinion within the PL membership that this has been a very badly advised and expensive exercise and that enough is enough.
 
Last edited:
SilverFox2 said:
Well they were blamed for making the PL allege the about 115 offences so it's not the PLs fault that City insist on legally defending them instead of just agreeing another fine.
Click to expand...
There is a clear suggestion that City should have acted differently at the outset of proceedings. What they should have done differently and how that would have affected the timescale is my question. Listen to Stefan's first answer on here at around 4'50 referring to the parameters as an example.

 
johnny crossan said:
There is a clear suggestion that City should have acted differently at the outset of proceedings. What they should have done differently and how that would have affected the timescale is my question. Listen to Stefan's first answer on here at around 4'50 referring to the parameters as an example.

Click to expand...

Sorry mate, I was being sarcastic rather than just taking the line that Mr K took ie enough is enough.

However,
Thanks for giving a different view on the whole process.
I am also aware that Mr K gave the PL an earlier warning that he would sooner spend x million on legal fees than take any more accusations
 
Colin Bells Boots said:
Khaldoon clearly knows that Trump is a stupid and arrogant ****, but is determined to milk the US for as much as possible.

The " Board Of Peace" is an absolutely perverse oxymoron when considering the position that Trump holds within the organisation.

An egotist and 100% physcopath who is so focussed on massaging his own ego that he surroundeds by yes men/women as deranged and pathetic as himself.

The stupidity of this shitshow cannot be understated, but there is a serious undercurrent which should not be overlooked.

Trump believes that he is so fucking clever, but there are many more who are nicely positioned to make the most of Donald's ego and stupidity, and that is a very satisfying thought.

And the moronic element is so appropriate when watching the ramblings of a total uber **** who reduces the status of the post of the President of the US into a shameful and unstatesmanlike era never witnessed before.
Click to expand...
From the UAE's point of view I'd say that there was a clear political motive, whatever they may think of Trump. Their number one concern, along with other Arab states, is the Muslim Brotherhood and its various offshoots. They mounted a big campaign here in the UK a few years ago to get the government to ban it. They'll be involved in any initiative that they think helps in that respect.
 
I am reading the word "delay" again so i'll bang my little drum again...

There is no delay,
because at the start of this no timescale was given, therefore delay is the wrong word and is misleading people.
Admittedly, some people are saying that it seems to be dragging on longer than expected, but expectations are guesswork.

TinDrum.gif
 
pepguardiola'smoustache said:
I am reading the word "delay" again so i'll bang my little drum again...

There is no delay,
because at the start of this no timescale was given, therefore delay is the wrong word and is misleading people.
Admittedly, some people are saying that it seems to be dragging on longer than expected, but expectations are guesswork.

TinDrum.gif
Click to expand...
you need to be semantically more catholic ;-)

delay def: make (someone or something) late or slow.
 
johnny crossan said:
you need to be semantically more catholic ;-)

delay def: make (someone or something) late or slow.
Click to expand...
Yes, but who exactly says it is late?
Not Lord P, and if it was late he'd be saying so, wouldn't he?

I prefer to use Chambers dictionary
(because if you cannot spell the word in the first place it doesn't offer suggestions, it just calls you a thick **** and says no results haha)...

delay
verb (delayed, delaying) 1 to slow someone or something down or make them late. 2 to put off to a later time. 3 intrans to be slow in doing something; to linger. noun (delays) 1 the act of delaying or state of being delayed. 2 the amount of time by which someone or something is delayed. delayer noun.
ETYMOLOGY: 13c: from French delaier.

I stand by and will always stand by my claim that there is no delay, jc.
 
slbsn said:
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.
Click to expand...

Some people have suggested that they may have moved onto 'part 2' and would publish both the liability outcome, and suggested penalty simultaneously, but later. No idea how feasible or not that is. I don't fond it illogical, but I don’t quite believe it. On nothing more than gut alone.
 
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