PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Tricky_Trev said:
Chelsea had the mitigating circumstances of the new ownership admitting what had happened before them. In the world where we are guilty of the most serious charges, there are no two ways about it, we would be fucked. But unless there has been some astonishing new evidence that we don’t know about, I don’t really see how the PL meet the burden of proof on the really serious stuff. We’re of course guilty of non-cooperation, that we pretty much know for certain and will carry a fine.
Click to expand...
chelsea had no choice the guardian had already got the full story from the whistle blower who did all the bank transfers in cyprus and dont they have £100 million of the russians money set aside for any fines in the future ?
 
Blue Mist said:
Apparently the PL are awaiting the outcome of the Southampton v EFL court case.
If Southampton win they have to be promoted in which case a guilty verdict will be announced against us and it will be a straight swap.
Click to expand...

Can't see this being true.

What would they have done with us if Southampton had never spied?

They are two completely different cases.
 
I've read a few comments saying we're guilty of non co operation but I'm sure I read at some point in the last few years. We had been co operating and said to the PL ask for everything you need city will give it, but the piece meal requests need to stop. The pl kept comming back asking for more and more and city said no. That isn't non co operation that's setting a line in the sand isn't it
 
Blue Mist said:
For a little light amusement just think of this.
At 9am next Monday the Premier League announce that there will be a news conference at 11am regarding the verdict.
Ric would be in total panic, ringing up every Mod, including the one that does fuck all in Australia. He'll be ringing up ex-Mods 'yes I know I said you were a tw*t but I need you back.'
He will be on the phone to XenForo to move 30,000 gigabytes from Pornhub to the BM server to try and cope.
His wife and kids will be sat by laptops that only have 2 working keys, Delete and Ban.
Then at 11.04 this place will resemble Terminator 2 as SkyNet takes over and all hell is let loose.

I shouldn't laugh .........
Click to expand...
And after doing all of that, he got the wrong Monday.
 
billblu said:
chelsea had no choice the guardian had already got the full story from the whistle blower who did all the bank transfers in cyprus and dont they have £100 million of the russians money set aside for any fines in the future ?
Click to expand...
So this. All this nonsense about Chelsea's new owners admitting it and being angels. They did everything they could to not admit anything but got forced. Typical US owner bullshit from the media
 
ComfySeats said:
I've read a few comments saying we're guilty of non co operation but I'm sure I read at some point in the last few years. We had been co operating and said to the PL ask for everything you need city will give it, but the piece meal requests need to stop. The pl kept comming back asking for more and more and city said no. That isn't non co operation that's setting a line in the sand isn't it
Click to expand...
They will probably find us guilty of the setting a line in the sand charge.
 
ComfySeats said:
I've read a few comments saying we're guilty of non co operation but I'm sure I read at some point in the last few years. We had been co operating and said to the PL ask for everything you need city will give it, but the piece meal requests need to stop. The pl kept comming back asking for more and more and city said no. That isn't non co operation that's setting a line in the sand isn't it
Click to expand...
I thought the non-cooperation stuff was related to the previous debacle that was already dealt with....no?
 
Silva2-1 said:
Would City buy Anderson for around 100 million if we are guilty?
Click to expand...
Yes of course we would. Or rather, as we don’t know the verdict we simply have to carry on as normal - it’s taken already so long what were supposed to do, just not buy anyone for the last few seasons? We carry on until a verdict is known and the deal with it then. Same goes for new stand and any other major financial commitments
 
Bozzie said:
I think there is a difference between the two situations regarding non-cooperation. We knowingly didn’t cooperate with UEFA because we, quite rightly, didn’t trust them with what we regarded as sensitive and confidential business information. We tried to bypass them and go straight to CAS which was refused. CAS did fine us for non-cooperation but reduced UEFA’s fine by 2/3rds to €10 million. I think that was because they were of the opinion that had we (City) presented UEFA with the evidence we presented to CAS then UEFA’s case would have collapsed. They also described the leaks from UEFA as “worrisome” iirc.
I think with the PL investigation we’ve again explored every possible legal avenue we can to retain control over our business details and stop the PL from going on a fishing expedition. That I guess could, and possibly will be, construed as ‘non-cooperation’.
Click to expand...
Yep, one or more person at UEFA were deliberately leaking details to one of the yank papers I think, so we told them to do one.

The PL changed the rules around the time the 115 came out which gave them carte blanche on demanding all and any documents and it was up to the club to deliver them post haste. The club appear to have had court appearances a few times since, disputing the reach the PL has. They can't claim that is non-cooperation though if we then gave over what we could. From the little we know as fact, I don't think the non-cooperation will actually come up.
 
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