PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

bluemanchester said:
Another way of looking at it, well it is Saturday before the dead rubber game tomorrow, and I am sat here watching you tube videos from years ago with Mrs Manchester, so I am breaking the boredom before an afternoon walk. Imagine you get in a car, which is the premier league, the two front wheels are Levy and Lewis, the driver is Gill and the back seat drivers are some American dressed as a peroxide blonde with pouted lips from Livarpool and a peroxide blonde with pouted lips from Manchester masquerading as Woodward, a lovely couple. As the car is driving down the road the front tyres start going over little bits of metal, the hard truth, and begin to lose air creating a bit of wheel wobble that the driver, Gill, can't control so he decides to bail out leaving the back seat drivers shouting at the front wheels to keep the car in line. On seeing this scruffy jim comes to the rescue as the driver. He steadies the car and orders the two back seat drivers to get out leaving them on the roadside looking for new business. After driving carefully following the road the driver seems to have everything in control untill some more little bits of metal, hard evidence, start making the front tyres, Levy and Lewis, lose more air and wobble again. The driver, scruffy jim, decides he needs a new plan and decides to get new front tyres, Barradas, and ditches the wobbling and now thoroughly illegal tyres, Levy and Lewis, because if he is caught with them he will get prosecuted as well when all the evidence is presented before a judge. Now the car, the premier league, is running smoothly into the distance hoping never to be found. The recently ejected tyres and peroxide blondes are now forlornly sitting at some roadside gathering dust and nobody wants to interview or speak to them as they know these are the ones who got them into this mess. Now I'm no lawyer, you guessed I know, but it is a very behind the scenes scenario I csn imagine being played out. Don't have a go at me because I told you all at the beginning I was bored;-)
See you all at the Etihad tomorrow.
Click to expand...

You should post more.

Not in this thread, though, please :)
 
Norman kneejerk said:
Just a thought but if as the City haters say we only wiin because we are cheats it shouldn't make any difference if Pep or Enzo are in charge ..... because we just cheat. Incredible how this infantile bollocks has got traction.
Click to expand...
That's a great way of looking at it, going to use that in future conversations with red shirted twats.
 
Protein Junkie said:
I have said all alone this is a smear campaign, nothing more or less.
The moronic hordes aka red cartel need this as sticking plaster to stem the wounds, paracetamol to ease the pain.
They designed their excuses an age ago. An impending success and out comes 115. Any valued member who leaves it’s because they know we are guilty. Pep is leaving a sinking ship. The brown envelope theory is still on the hob should we be found not guilty.
As for Stefan and Colin, both well respected and well read on here. Opposite views but it is really that binary ?
Click to expand...

CC1 said:
I agree with all that & like to read your thoughts & opinions but I do feel that even if Pannick did know, he’s not going to admit it when asked by public because it’s confidential & he’s professional. So…, he might know


:-) :-)
Click to expand...
 
slbsn said:
No doubt the snipers will be out shortly but just to be clear again.

- Nobody knows the outcome of the hearing except the panel. Of course, not impossible the draft came yesterday - but as of Wednesday it hadn't
- Parties will have a good feel after the hearing for those issues that were settled one way or the other vs those that it is too hard to tell (will know by the way the panel asked questions, general direction of travel of the hearing, performance of witnesses etc). Some things will have been abandoned, some things emphasised
- It is simply not true at all that the parties were told the nub of the result 3 months after the event or that the club doesn't know (whatever that means) but Khaldoon does - whoever has told Colin that is simply wrong. Personally, I feel persisting with this theory on here is misleading - given we are at June 2026, it couldn't possibly be true even if we didn't KNOW everything else we KNOW. To emphasise, the best City have (Khaldoon or anyone else) is an impressionistic view of how things went and, of course, advice and a deep understanding of how compelling City's own evidence was. Perhaps painful, but even Lord Pannick doesn't KNOW if City defended the most serious allegations aside from the points above
- That the club remains confident and approaching everything as business as usual is self evident
- Pep has not left because of 115
- Even if you don't believe me, Pannick himself has responded here (those emails are real and he would not lie or mislead on Blackstone email) and, as you'd imagine, gets asked about the case when in the outside world. As on email, he does not stonewall any question
- APT is irrelevant to the outcome of 115 partly because it couldn't be pleaded as it wasn't resolved
- No decision can take much longer than 19 months. As I have said we are now deep in outlier territory for any commercial arbitration, disciplinary, piece of litigation - decisions simply are not meant to take this long for the reasons I detailed in yesterday's article. I always warned it would take a long time but never imagined it could be in this extreme category. It is an embarrassment to the panel, completely unacceptable and, as I wrote yesterday, an invitation to challenge the entire process if it goes against one party and they want to challenge it
- From information I had a couple of weeks ago from a very senior Clerk, it does appear that the bulk of the drafting has been completed
Click to expand...

Do you expect points deduction, relegation and these sort of punishments ?
 
Legalamb777 said:
Stefan it’s a bit harsh and unfair to let a minority of people on here affect your presence on Bluemoon,I for one enjoy your posts,insight etc,I’d like to think I speak for the majority but that’s not my place,why not just mute the users you have suspicions about?
This forum will be a poorer place without your input and specific knowledge on this subject….hey mate,it’s your decision in the end obviously but I for one hope you don’t disappear off the grid.
Even though you and @Prestwich_Blue have differing views on what’s happening with the 115 case,it’s you and Colin’s posts I look forward to the most,especially in the PL charges thread…I appreciate you pal.
Click to expand...
Perzactly!

'PB' and 'Stefan' have been go-to contributors regarding the Red Cartel's self-entitled jumped up farrago of lies and nonsense aimed at us these recent years. Over this time, I've destroyed many a Red Cartel supporting tosser making throwaway comments about us by referring to the ammunition they've provided us Blues. And I thank them both for it.

'Lang may their lums reek!'
 
halfcenturyup said:
Clearly, they would have signed an NDA to avoid sanction by the PL :)
Click to expand...
But if they have left their positions at those clubs,the premier have no say in what they can do and say,as long as it isn’t liable,if they have signed NDA’s before leaving their positions then more fool them ..It’s not like they are leaving MI5..
 
Last edited:
slbsn said:
No doubt the snipers will be out shortly but just to be clear again.

- Nobody knows the outcome of the hearing except the panel. Of course, not impossible the draft came yesterday - but as of Wednesday it hadn't
- Parties will have a good feel after the hearing for those issues that were settled one way or the other vs those that it is too hard to tell (will know by the way the panel asked questions, general direction of travel of the hearing, performance of witnesses etc). Some things will have been abandoned, some things emphasised
- It is simply not true at all that the parties were told the nub of the result 3 months after the event or that the club doesn't know (whatever that means) but Khaldoon does - whoever has told Colin that is simply wrong. Personally, I feel persisting with this theory on here is misleading - given we are at June 2026, it couldn't possibly be true even if we didn't KNOW everything else we KNOW. To emphasise, the best City have (Khaldoon or anyone else) is an impressionistic view of how things went and, of course, advice and a deep understanding of how compelling City's own evidence was. Perhaps painful, but even Lord Pannick doesn't KNOW if City defended the most serious allegations aside from the points above
- That the club remains confident and approaching everything as business as usual is self evident
- Pep has not left because of 115
- Even if you don't believe me, Pannick himself has responded here (those emails are real and he would not lie or mislead on Blackstone email) and, as you'd imagine, gets asked about the case when in the outside world. As on email, he does not stonewall any question
- APT is irrelevant to the outcome of 115 partly because it couldn't be pleaded as it wasn't resolved
- No decision can take much longer than 19 months. As I have said we are now deep in outlier territory for any commercial arbitration, disciplinary, piece of litigation - decisions simply are not meant to take this long for the reasons I detailed in yesterday's article. I always warned it would take a long time but never imagined it could be in this extreme category. It is an embarrassment to the panel, completely unacceptable and, as I wrote yesterday, an invitation to challenge the entire process if it goes against one party and they want to challenge it
- From information I had a couple of weeks ago from a very senior Clerk, it does appear that the bulk of the drafting has been completed
Click to expand...
I don’t have X so not been able to access your latest article, Stefan.

Apologies if you’ve already covered it off in the article, but do you foresee a scenario where pre-season comes and goes without a verdict landing?
 
Last edited:
deano ou812 said:
But if they have left their positions at those clubs,the premier have no say in what they can do and say,as long as it isn’t liable,if they have signed NDA’s before leaving their positions then more fool them ..It’s not like they are leaving MI5..
Click to expand...

I was joking but I might as well go all in. They sign an NDA and their names are redacted in the judgment. Break the NDA and either party can expose their nefariousness. Part of @Prestwich_Blue 's negotiations ;)
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
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. ;-)
Click to expand...
Well that I agree with.
 
slbsn said:
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.
Click to expand...
The thing that happened in March 2025, was Pep in February saying we will have the verdict next month. That's where most of that timeframe and assumption stems from. The rest is trying to make other pieces fit.

I can actually see why at the time, there may have been some logic to it. 16 months later, that's all fallen away now.
 
Last edited:
Cityfan1977 said:
Those 2 parties must know how the trial went, Did City comitt fraud or not. If PL could show evedence that City are quilty or City showed evedence they are innosent.

The 2 parties know who has won the case. these 3 in the panel will not find City quilty if PL cant proof it.

City are quilty or they are innosent, all the lawers who tok part in this will know how it went

Or am I simplifying this to much ?
Click to expand...
Knowing how they think it went, and knowing the outcome, are two very very different things. Having the verdict is a third altogether.
 
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