PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

DD said:
This effectively assumes we are guilty.

What aftermath would there be outside of the football environment if none of the major charges were proven?
Click to expand...
David Pannick isn't some mindless 'We'll plead not guilty' advocate regardless of the truth. Like all lawyers, he represents the good, the bad and the ugly in the pursuit of justice - even the most vile criminals are entitled to a lawyer - not so that they are found innocent but to see they're treated fairly through the process including the post-guilty verdict. He and his team have seen everything and more about this case. If, in his view we were guilty of the charges he would be giving the club the relevant advice in that context even if it's what they don't want to hear. He wouldn't risk his world class reputation for advocacy by saying the things the club wants to hear without good reason. As someone else said, lawyers' reputations are built largely on the quality of advice they give. Just my opinion - he would have plea bargained years ago if he considered the club had transgressed in any significant way. But he hasn't done that. Nevertheless, the club faces a kangaroo court with the panel being chosen, as I understand it by an Arsenal club member and season ticket holder even though Arsenal are the main complainer.
 
Centurions said:
Was he taller by any chance?

We always played spot the windmill first, is it still there? Either that or my memory really has gone.
Click to expand...
Yeah he was taller,but it was negated as we were in the back of the car on the motorway from Manchester,at a certain point in the journey you could just see the top of the tower,so weren’t in Blackpool,still on the motorway;)
 
halfcenturyup said:
Good Lord. Somebody listened to me - that's a new experience. It's pinned again.

So what about updating it, @Chris in London ?

Based on the last few pages, maybe a summary of the thinking as to why it's taking so long and the question of RPT allegations. Maybe update it for Rosen being replaced at the end of his term.

I am sure there are many more things that can be added, if anyone has any ideas?
Click to expand...
Don't forget to include what the going rate for spotting Blackpool Tower was in the 70s and 80s
 
halfcenturyup said:
Actually, it's a fair point. RPT nature / FMV of sponsorships could very well be part of the allegations. I seem to remember the initial APT award referred to PL allegations that the RPT rules weren't sufficient to ensure FMV as they relied on retrospective self-reporting and even referred to the 115 case as evidence of that.

It's a pretty esoteric argument, though, and one difficult to prove after 7-17 years, imho, for a number of reasons.

Edit: I had thought that, rather than trying to prove the related party nature of the sponsorships, the PL may have argued on the issue of ownership. If the PL alleged state influence on the ownership, they would consider (almost all) the AD sponsorships RPTs by default. They would still have the same issues proving it, though. I always thought it strange that ownership was moved from ADUG to Newton during the investigation.
Click to expand...
If applying hindsight every deal was way way below FMV, who had heard of Etihad back when it was announced? frequent flyers and people who went to UaE, now they are more recognised than BA/Virgin/American etc. The smaller Abu Dhabi companies I probably still wouldn't know existed without city.



Congratulations on getting the sticky post from Chris back



Given the ineptitude of Murray and Masters, could the ridiculously long delay simply be that Murray is a daft **** that didn’t check existing commitments and available overlaps of perspective panel members or that Masters didn’t folk out a wedge to secure enough of their time to focus on this in a timely & reasonable manner?



I get that it might be complex and they absolutely need to cover their arses as it’ll be scrutinised probably more than any other judgement in history (certainly not saying it’s the most important), but just don’t see how deliberation and write up takes so fucking long without there not being adequate meetings\ time allocation form the start.
 
hello said:
If applying hindsight every deal was way way below FMV, who had heard of Etihad back when it was announced? frequent flyers and people who went to UaE, now they are more recognised than BA/Virgin/American etc. The smaller Abu Dhabi companies I probably still wouldn't know existed without city.



Congratulations on getting the sticky post from Chris back



Given the ineptitude of Murray and Masters, could the ridiculously long delay simply be that Murray is a daft **** that didn’t check existing commitments and available overlaps of perspective panel members or that Masters didn’t folk out a wedge to secure enough of their time to focus on this in a timely & reasonable manner?



I get that it might be complex and they absolutely need to cover their arses as it’ll be scrutinised probably more than any other judgement in history (certainly not saying it’s the most important), but just don’t see how deliberation and write up takes so fucking long without there not being adequate meetings\ time allocation form the start.
Click to expand...
The longer the Prem drag it out, the longer they think they're dragging us through the mud.
 
How the fuck is this still dragging on, if City are cleared I feel there must be some counter-case for damages caused to the club as this lingers over it the entire time affecting its image.
 
Uptop said:
How the fuck is this still dragging on, if City are cleared I feel there must be some counter-case for damages caused to the club as this lingers over it the entire time affecting its image.
Click to expand...
Regardless of when and what the verdict is it will forever more affect out image.
 
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