PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Legalamb777 said:
Takes me back to when I mistook a knocking shop for the dentists(honestly)when I realised my mistake I hurriedly made for the exit,worryingly one of the “hookers”shall we say looked like Billy Bremner……..

If I’d have dabbled…………it’d have fallen off
Click to expand...
Out of interest, how long were you there before you realised your "mistake"?
 
Bluekiwi said:
Just popping back onto the Thread's original point .....................

If I remember correctly, we have not been charged with 115 separate charges.
Some are the "breaking the same rules" over a number of seasons.
If that is the case, why is it taking so long to release the findings?
Surely if we are cleared of the charge for one year of a rule then that would apply to subsequent years?
Or am I being too simplistic?
Click to expand...
I think you've got the wrong thread. This one is about....er.....
 
Legalamb777 said:
Takes me back to when I mistook a knocking shop for the dentists(honestly)when I realised my mistake I hurriedly made for the exit,worryingly one of the “hookers”shall we say looked like Billy Bremner……..

If I’d have dabbled…………it’d have fallen off
Click to expand...
Was this before or after you had a polish?
 
Bluekiwi said:
Just popping back onto the Thread's original point .....................

If I remember correctly, we have not been charged with 115 separate charges.
Some are the "breaking the same rules" over a number of seasons.
If that is the case, why is it taking so long to release the findings?
Surely if we are cleared of the charge for one year of a rule then that would apply to subsequent years?
Or am I being too simplistic?
Click to expand...

I suppose you deserve an answer despite derailing the thread with talk of the allegations.

I imagine they would have to look at each allegation for each year, otherwise how do they know something didn't happen in one year that didn't happen in the other years?
 
bitterblue78 said:
He said the same after our CAS victory. All he was banging on about was "well UEFA found them guilty"
Click to expand...

Strange how press/media are happy to believe an organisation that has been proven to be in the wrong.

UEFA did indeed find City guilty but it was proven to be bollocks by CAS.
 
halfcenturyup said:
I suppose you deserve an answer despite derailing the thread with talk of the allegations.

I imagine they would have to look at each allegation for each year, otherwise how do they know something didn't happen in one year that didn't happen in the other years?
Click to expand...
My original view was that if something wasn't a problem in Year 0, then by default it wouldn't be a problem in Years 1, 2, 3, etc. And if it was t an issue under Rule X, then it automatically wouldn't be an issue under Rule Y. But that could be wrong.

If we take, say, the Mancini contract, they might look at that as a whole and decide if it was a knowing attempt to keep costs off the books, or just a personal arrangement to suit Mancini. If the latter, then I guess they'd have to decide for each of the 3 years under review (assuming it wasn't time-barred, which it almost certainly should be) whether he fulfilled his obligations under the contract. Then they might also have to decide if we acted in good faith under Rule X or not, and did we break Rule Y as well.

But if the PL is also alleging that we failed to report Etihad as a related party for 9 years, then it should be enough to convince the tribunal just once that it wasn't, rather than having to do that for each year separately. But if they were looking at whether the sponsorship was disguised equity investment then you'd have to look at each year separately, although we might present 3 or 4 years as an aggregate, as happened at CAS. And if the sponsorship was found to be perfectly legitimate then presumably it wouldn't breach any rules, no matter how many we'd been charged under.

But I suspect they'd make a substantive decision first, then decide if they needed to look at the various rules and years separately. One thing I can't imagine they would've done is listen to the same arguments put forward by both parties for each year and each rule as a completely separate part of the hearing.

As an analogy, imagine if you were charged with a number of criminal offences, all of which were based on you having been at a given location at a given time. If you could prove conclusively that you weren't at that location at that time, then you would only have to do that once. But if it was the case that you could have been in that location at the specified time, then you'd have to answer each charge separately, on that charge's
own merits.
 
Last edited:
give it to gordon said:
Strange how press/media are happy to believe an organisation that has been proven to be in the wrong.

UEFA did indeed find City guilty but it was proven to be bollocks by CAS.
Click to expand...
That's what I find strange about the media. For me the biggest story in the UEFA stuff was why they found us guilty when CAS so easily dismissed the case with a damming report. Surely any real investigative journalist would want to delve into that, get to real scoop of who is the actual power. Im pretty sure even Platini said he didn't want FFP in its current form and also did not want to charge city.
With that its clear as day the media a driven by the red cartel and what and how they report.
To be slightly fair to Harris he has tried to examine the detail of 115 and see the angle of attack and defence (but with a clear and obvious pre determind outcome he wants us guilty) but shot down by stefan on petty much all his argument (maybe thats why he has gone doolally). All other journalists just focus on the punishment only, that to me aligns to being driven by the red cartel because the process is the punishment.
 
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