"Despite his departure as Manager of Manchester City, Pep will continue his relationship with the City Football Group, by taking up a role as a Global Ambassador. The role will see him giving technical advice to the clubs in the group, working on specific projects and collaborations."I’ve missed this ambassador news, is there a link?
So a load of side contracts with other clubs then? Another load of charges incoming."Despite his departure as Manager of Manchester City, Pep will continue his relationship with the City Football Group, by taking up a role as a Global Ambassador. The role will see him giving technical advice to the clubs in the group, working on specific projects and collaborations."
Taken from the official website
Interesting read from Stefan here.
I'm solid in my belief, based on information from respected sources, that the outcome was decided (and informally known by the parties) within 3 months of the end of the hearing. I also believe the outcome wasn't great for one of those parties, which has been a major contributory factor in the inordinate delay. (Hint: it wasn't City).He has been reading my posts again ;)
Post in thread 'PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules' https://forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk/...aches-of-financial-rules.358514/post-19315994
Interesting read from Stefan here.
I'm solid in my belief, based on information from respected sources, that the outcome was decided (and informally known by the parties) within 3 months of the end of the hearing. I also believe the outcome wasn't great for one of those parties, which has been a major contributory factor in the inordinate delay. (Hint: it wasn't City).
How come no leak then that is what I dont understand. There is always a leakI'm solid in my belief, based on information from respected sources, that the outcome was decided (and informally known by the parties) within 3 months of the end of the hearing. I also believe the outcome wasn't great for one of those parties, which has been a major contributory factor in the inordinate delay. (Hint: it wasn't City).
I'm solid in my belief, based on information from respected sources, that the outcome was decided (and informally known by the parties) within 3 months of the end of the hearing. I also believe the outcome wasn't great for one of those parties, which has been a major contributory factor in the inordinate delay. (Hint: it wasn't City).
How come no leak then that is what I dont understand. There is always a leak
Nothing has previously leaked with regards to any of the cases vs The PL from City’s end. It’s another reason I am confident, because the Premier League cannot help themselves leaking to their cronies (Ziegler) being the main one, and if City were at serious risk of losing, we’d likely know via these leaks by now.How come no leak then that is what I dont understand. There is always a leak
Click the X top right.Anyway to read it without signing up to twatter?
Unless you have a second life coming, I wouldn't bother, it's very (very) long legal jargon, and hardly really mentions City.Anyway to read it without signing up to twatter?
I'm speculating wildly here but I've said before that I've been told the PL didn't come out of it well.So Colin, if thats true, in your opinion, is it damage limitation negotiating now then to minimise the premier league liability in all of this?
How come no leak then that is what I dont understand. There is always a leak
Hasn't he been saying it would take ages since the start?Just read Stefan's article. In short, taking 19 months may be seen as too long to get a safe judgement. The reason it took so long is almost certainly (according to the article) so they can get any guilty decisions worded so correctly that the 19 months won't actually become an issue. That about right? Doesn't that simply suggest we have been found guilty on some points and, presumably, some significant ones?
Just read Stefan's article. In short, taking 19 months may be seen as too long to get a safe judgement. The reason it took so long is almost certainly (according to the article) so they can get any guilty decisions worded so correctly that the 19 months won't actually become an issue. That about right? Doesn't that simply suggest we have been found guilty on some points and, presumably, some significant ones?
I'm solid in my belief, based on information from respected sources, that the outcome was decided (and informally known by the parties) within 3 months of the end of the hearing. I also believe the outcome wasn't great for one of those parties, which has been a major contributory factor in the inordinate delay. (Hint: it wasn't City).
That assumes, as I said in my post above, that the waiting is for the judgement itself. I doubt it is, as the panel would have been pretty clear on that by the end of the hearing,Just read Stefan's article. In short, taking 19 months may be seen as too long to get a safe judgement. The reason it took so long is almost certainly (according to the article) so they can get any guilty decisions worded so correctly that the 19 months won't actually become an issue. That about right? Doesn't that simply suggest we have been found guilty on some points and, presumably, some significant ones?