PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[HorlockofFiretopMountain]

I’m still convinced that the sudden and almost contemporaneous departure of these two City hating crooks last year was no coincidence, maybe City demanded sacrifices in exchange for not going public with something very damaging?

Exits of Lewis and Levy will mean less ‘banging on the table’ at Premier League meetings | Matt Hughes

North London’s boardroom reshuffles should mean a more collaborative approach at meetings, for now at least

www.theguardian.com

Ot definitley feels like too much of a coincidence

 

[dadnlad]

Ot definitley feels like too much of a coincidence

few other shit stirrers Brady and woodward

 

[Lord Blue]

i wonder how many of these things will align once the verdict is out.

the truth
the verdict
the media consensus
the opinion of city fans
the opinion of red cartel fans
the opinion of neutral fans

 

[red 2 hats]

Let me guess, it's imminent, again

It's more than that, it's now imminently imminent :)

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

PB, fyi I am going to respond to other posters on this, I wanted not to, but there is a valid unfolding discussion here. I have my opinion and am allowed to share it with fellow blues, on a topic that affects me/us.

Before I do, making it clear to you first, it is not aimed at you, it is not passively loaded, simply responding to them and sharing my stance. No negativity.

I know this particular point has been a bone of contention between us in the past, and one I have been pricky about. It has never been about the take itself though, but about it being presented as a known fact. You make it clear though that it is your belief, your speculation etc, and that's as valid as any.

Not that I need permission to disagree, but being conscious also of how it might look to you. That fair?

You're quite entitled to your opinion mate. I know what I've been told and I can fully understand why people are cynical. But let's look at what we do know:

• The PL Rules require an outcome by, or soon after, the end of the hearing.
• My judge friend confirmed that the panel will have largely formed a view before the hearing started, and should have fully formed a view by the end. So we can be pretty sure that the verdict has been agreed, and a good while ago probably. It doesn't then take 18 months to document it.
• There was a lot of noise around March 2025 that something had happened. Two separate people with UAE-based sources told me that we had won and the PL had come out of it badly. That was probably about the right timescale as well.
• If Levy and Lewis both stepped down as a result of something connected to our case, then it's clear that the outcome must be known in some form (although not published) and that there is some sort of discussion or horse trading going on behind the scenes. Their departures may have been complete coincidence of course, and if they were then that line of reasoning fails.
• Gobshite Brady clearly stood down because of the Sullivan case, so we can rule out her departure being connected to our case.

I don't think hundreds of people at the club will know to leak it.

If people do know (and I believe they do, as I've said) then it's limited to a handful of people such as Khaldoon, Simon Cliff and possibly Soriano & the directors. None of them has any motive to leak, particularly if there is something going on behind the scenes that requires them to keep it quiet. And if the PL have come out of it badly then they've absolutely no motivation to leak.

 

[spiny]

The 115 allegeded charges against City is in the hands of a tribunal about a breach of competition rules and as such is not a trial in the normal sense of law breaking or criminality. I am not aware of the panels exact terms of reference but the fact that some of the rules, challenged by City, have already been judged illegal, must have a bearing.

MCFC and our owners, have profited handsomely from success in the Premier League so there is no reason for them to undermine the organisation. However, certain members of the PL have lost out as a result of City's success and have campaigned against us in various ways.

Whatever the outcome, and I expect the charges to be found unproven, it makes no economic sense for the Premier League to be tainted nor for MCFC, one of its biggest draws. The Arse and Spuds have already sacked their scapegoats. The rags have appointed connected ex-City as a changing of the guard and the grievers have gone quiet.

I expect the outcome to be a confusticated fudge.

 

[Ryan.98.]

The 115 allegeded charges against City is in the hands of a tribunal about a breach of competition rules and as such is not a trial in the normal sense of law breaking or criminality. I am not aware of the panels exact terms of reference but the fact that some of the rules, challenged by City, have already been judged illegal, must have a bearing.

MCFC and our owners, have profited handsomely from success in the Premier League so there is no reason for them to undermine the organisation. However, certain members of the PL have lost out as a result of City's success and have campaigned against us in various ways.

Whatever the outcome, and I expect the charges to be found unproven, it makes no economic sense for the Premier League to be tainted nor for MCFC, one of its biggest draws. The Arse and Spuds have already sacked their scapegoats. The rags have appointed connected ex-City as a changing of the guard and the grievers have gone quiet.

I expect the outcome to be a confusticated fudge.

I hope you’re correct and I wish they would bloody hurry up.

 

[Fred_Quimby]

Lots of people on here talking about 'coincidences'; let us get this straight - there is no such thing as coincidence, everything has a reason to happen. The same as 'luck'; there is no such thing. Was it Lee Trevino who said 'it's funny, the more I practice the 'luckier' I get'.

 

[slbsn]

You're quite entitled to your opinion mate. I know what I've been told and I can fully understand why people are cynical. But let's look at what we do know:

• The PL Rules require an outcome by, or soon after, the end of the hearing.
• My judge friend confirmed that the panel will have largely formed a view before the hearing started, and should have fully formed a view by the end. So we can be pretty sure that the verdict has been agreed, and a good while ago probably. It doesn't then take 18 months to document it.
• There was a lot of noise around March 2025 that something had happened. Two separate people with UAE-based sources told me that we had won and the PL had come out of it badly. That was probably about the right timescale as well.
• If Levy and Lewis both stepped down as a result of something connected to our case, then it's clear that the outcome must be known in some form (although not published) and that there is some sort of discussion or horse trading going on behind the scenes. Their departures may have been complete coincidence of course, and if they were then that line of reasoning fails.
• Gobshite Brady clearly stood down because of the Sullivan case, so we can rule out her departure being connected to our case.

If people do know (and I believe they do, as I've said) then it's limited to a handful of people such as Khaldoon, Simon Cliff and possibly Soriano & the directors. None of them has any motive to leak, particularly if there is something going on behind the scenes that requires them to keep it quiet. And if the PL have come out of it badly then they've absolutely no motivation to leak.

In order:
1. That isn't what the rules say. In context "as soon as practicable" gives the PL complete cover if they don't have a decision from the Panel.
2. This is normal judicial thinking - an impression is formed of course. Bad judges have pretty much decided on the papers, better ones listen to the evidence first. It clearly has take 18 months to document it, whether you are right about the rest or not
3. Nothing happened in March 2025 on the case of note. It is barely believable I need to say this because there is no scenario where something material occurred 15 months ago and yet is still private
4. Lewis and Levy were NOTHING to do with 115 anymore than Pep leaving is. Nor is Brady.
5. Even in the tightest of dissemination situations - barristers and clerks at at least 6 different sets of Chambers would have the result, at least 2 law firms (plus those firms acting for some of the witnesses), multiple auditors and directors of both organisations plus those involved in audit processes at both.

I have no desire to run these arguments again and I promise I won't but this is just giving people misleading information that isn't just not right but it can't be right. Come on Colin, even if you ignore everything else, you understand audit - a material thing that happened in March 2025, simply can't be hidden including from the respective boards by 2 different organisations (plus the contradiction that it somehow was also leaked out to Spurs and Arsenal and involved in Levy and Lewis leaving). It is simply not true.

 

[cheekybids]

If I had the money our gaffer has I would have sued the bastard onto the streets

I would have bought every house on their streets but theirs & turned it into benefits street with White Dee popping round for a brew…..

 

[cheekybids]

In order:
1. That isn't what the rules say. In context "as soon as practicable" gives the PL complete cover if they don't have a decision from the Panel.
2. This is normal judicial thinking - an impression is formed of course. Bad judges have pretty much decided on the papers, better ones listen to the evidence first. It clearly has take 18 months to document it, whether you are right about the rest or not
3. Nothing happened in March 2025 on the case of note. It is barely believable I need to say this because there is no scenario where something material occurred 15 months ago and yet is still private
4. Lewis and Levy were NOTHING to do with 115 anymore than Pep leaving is. Nor is Brady.
5. Even in the tightest of dissemination situations - barristers and clerks at at least 6 different sets of Chambers would have the result, at least 2 law firms (plus those firms acting for some of the witnesses), multiple auditors and directors of both organisations plus those involved in audit processes at both.

I have no desire to run these arguments again and I promise I won't but this is just giving people misleading information that isn't just not right but it can't be right. Come on Colin, even if you ignore everything else, you understand audit - a material thing that happened in March 2025, simply can't be hidden including from the respective boards by 2 different organisations (plus the contradiction that it somehow was also leaked out to Spurs and Arsenal and involved in Levy and Lewis leaving). It is simply not true.

I can’t believe Lewis & Levy had nothing to do with the 115 charges being laid, we know there has to be an appetite for charges to be laid & this normally comes in the form of lobbying. I know you have more knowledge than me but I’m just putting my opinion forward.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

In order:
1. That isn't what the rules say. In context "as soon as practicable" gives the PL complete cover if they don't have a decision from the Panel.
2. This is normal judicial thinking - an impression is formed of course. Bad judges have pretty much decided on the papers, better ones listen to the evidence first. It clearly has take 18 months to document it, whether you are right about the rest or not
3. Nothing happened in March 2025 on the case of note. It is barely believable I need to say this because there is no scenario where something material occurred 15 months ago and yet is still private
4. Lewis and Levy were NOTHING to do with 115 anymore than Pep leaving is. Nor is Brady.
5. Even in the tightest of dissemination situations - barristers and clerks at at least 6 different sets of Chambers would have the result, at least 2 law firms (plus those firms acting for some of the witnesses), multiple auditors and directors of both organisations plus those involved in audit processes at both.

I have no desire to run these arguments again and I promise I won't but this is just giving people misleading information that isn't just not right but it can't be right. Come on Colin, even if you ignore everything else, you understand audit - a material thing that happened in March 2025, simply can't be hidden including from the respective boards by 2 different organisations (plus the contradiction that it somehow was also leaked out to Spurs and Arsenal and involved in Levy and Lewis leaving). It is simply not true.

I agree it's a pointless exercise as we're just going round in circles. I struggle to believe it's taken 19 months just to document this, particularly given the unprecedented nature of the case. I don't believe that's "...as soon as practicable".

We'll find out when we find out. Imminently, apparently. ;-)

 

[deano ou812]

What I find strange is that if we believe that levy and Lewis left their positions at spurs and arsenal because of the 115,then surely something would have leaked either from them or from them talking to close associates at both clubs or at the premier league..

 

[halfcenturyup]

In order:
1. That isn't what the rules say. In context "as soon as practicable" gives the PL complete cover if they don't have a decision from the Panel.
2. This is normal judicial thinking - an impression is formed of course. Bad judges have pretty much decided on the papers, better ones listen to the evidence first. It clearly has take 18 months to document it, whether you are right about the rest or not
3. Nothing happened in March 2025 on the case of note. It is barely believable I need to say this because there is no scenario where something material occurred 15 months ago and yet is still private
4. Lewis and Levy were NOTHING to do with 115 anymore than Pep leaving is. Nor is Brady.
5. Even in the tightest of dissemination situations - barristers and clerks at at least 6 different sets of Chambers would have the result, at least 2 law firms (plus those firms acting for some of the witnesses), multiple auditors and directors of both organisations plus those involved in audit processes at both.

I have no desire to run these arguments again and I promise I won't but this is just giving people misleading information that isn't just not right but it can't be right. Come on Colin, even if you ignore everything else, you understand audit - a material thing that happened in March 2025, simply can't be hidden including from the respective boards by 2 different organisations (plus the contradiction that it somehow was also leaked out to Spurs and Arsenal and involved in Levy and Lewis leaving). It is simply not true.

It's just like the good old days :)

 

[halfcenturyup]

What I find strange is that if we believe that levy and Lewis left their positions at spurs and arsenal because of the 115,then surely something would have leaked either from them or from them talking to close associates at both clubs or at the premier league..

Clearly, they would have signed an NDA to avoid sanction by the PL :)

 

[chesterbells]

few other shit stirrers Brady and woodward

Think the reasons for her departure lie elsewhere tbh.

 

[Legalamb777]

I’m still convinced that the sudden and almost contemporaneous departure of these two City hating crooks last year was no coincidence, maybe City demanded sacrifices in exchange for not going public with something very damaging?

Exits of Lewis and Levy will mean less ‘banging on the table’ at Premier League meetings | Matt Hughes

North London’s boardroom reshuffles should mean a more collaborative approach at meetings, for now at least

www.theguardian.com

Yeah….there was definitely more to this than meets the eye,pretty damn sure it was connected to the 115 case in some part at least.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

What I find strange is that if we believe that levy and Lewis left their positions at spurs and arsenal because of the 115,then surely something would have leaked either from them or from them talking to close associates at both clubs or at the premier league..

Do you believe, if there is a connection, that they're going to leak that they've been cunts?

As I speculated, it could be that the evidence we uncovered as part of our discovery means we have a potential legal case against them. We already know from the APT case that Masters and his board were prepared to ignore legal advice on the urging of a club chairman (almost certainly Bloom). That alone should have cost Masters his job.

 

[west didsblue]

I don’t know about Levy but Lewis’s step back from Spurs coincided with insider trading charges in the US with the potential of it being a protracted and costly issue. Due to his age (late 80s), I think it’s far more likely that his stepping back from Spurs was more related to protecting his legacy for his family and separating the family’s ownership from his personal interests to prevent any potential legal action against him dragging it in. I also suspect the insider trading charges were of greater concern to him than charges against City, and hence his focus was not on our case in the slightest.

 

[SilverFox2]

I don’t know about Levy but Lewis’s step back from Spurs coincided with insider trading charges in the US with the potential of it being a protracted and costly issue. Due to his age (late 80s), I think it’s far more likely that his stepping back from Spurs was more related to protecting his legacy for his family and separating the family’s ownership from his personal interests to prevent any potential legal action against him dragging it in. I also suspect the insider trading charges were of greater concern to him than charges against City, and hence his focus was not on our case in the slightest.

Is that a different Lewis?
I think the one mentioned is probably from Arsenal.