PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

We've got Guardiola said:
I think we all know that this is a very sensitive issue and there is far more to it than football. City are not owned by a random businessman, we're owned by the vice president of the UAE, a member of the UAE royal family.

We're not a play thing for Sheikh Mansour, we're part and parcel of a greater strategy to diversify the UAE and Abu Dhabi. Investment in city has directly led to investment in the UK elsewhere and obviously Manchester itself, the Co-op arena and local area etc etc. Khaldoon personally signed the peace board deal on behalf of the UAE with Donald Trump so even Khaldoon is now a major player for the UAE globally and not just in football or business or whatever.

Key figures in the UAE do not take kindly AT ALL to being called cheats or anything else which may damage their reputation. Reputation is everything to them. Look at what happened in the UAE when they were attacked by Iran, they have put people in prison for posting images on social media because of the reputational damage. Imagine what they'd do if a key billion pound business was called out publicly as one that cheats and the rewards and trophies of their investment were taken away?

If city were punished harshly then it would go down very badly. It could lead to the UAE pulling billions of investment out of football or the greater UK/Europe region. They happily deal with dodgy people such as Trump because it benefits them so they'll have no problem abandoning the UK if the UK can't help to protect their reputation. It's cold and transactional but also ruthless.

This is very likely why it's taking so long alongside the lawyer wrangling. It wouldn't take very long to look at the evidence and judge whether city have done something wrong or not. Dealing with the aftermath of that is likely to be extremely sensitive and it will definitely attract pressure from the government. This is where it gets sticky and indeed it is dark and dodgy but that's the world that we live in.
Click to expand...
As with the anticipated objections that we might win by paying people off, the question is why would political influence be brought to bear at this stage when it would be far more effective to kill the whole thing off before charges were brought? A discrete word in the ear that simply accepting the CAS verdict would be of great benefit to the country and arise Sir Richard Masters.
 
blueste41 said:
Regardless of when and what the verdict is it will forever more affect out image.
Click to expand...
Without these accusations we would have got respect from our opponesnts? I mean state-funded, human rights violations, paying off the PL, bungs to Pep have all been thrown at City. I see no respect for what we have achieved with all that.

Are Arsenal respected or cheats now they have won the PL? Its the new way, no one respects any achievements, just denigration to the nth degree nowadays.

So you are probably right it will affect our image, but what will change (Hopefully) is that we can tell Dave the Dickhead (When he pipes on about how we cheated), we will be able to point him to the verdict. Because in this world of universal denigration and lies and accusations etc it is facts that speak loudest. I cant wait to point them out to our opponents.

Plus, lets see what our owners have to say once it is all over (And hopefully gone in our favour), I think they will have lots to say once they are in a more powerful position.
 
HarrytheBlue said:
Kangaroo court - Arsenal the main complainer - their headed paper. Yet the Prem allowed the so-called Independent Panel to be chosen by an Arsenal club member and season ticket holder. Colossal mistake. Just my opinion here, but I believe that David Pannick would not risk his world class reputation if he thought there was evidence of wrongdoing. If he found evidence of wrongdoing he would have plea bargained years ago relative to the scale of things and explained that to the club beforehand, but that hasn't happened. We demolished UEFA at CAS when they tried to screw us over with stolen, tampered with and out-of-date so-called evidence. We were happy to take the fine for non-cooperation - why cooperate with a bent organisation trying to screw us over........??????

I don't trust the panel to treat us fairly with the red cartel pushing them/the Prem to get rid of us so although I believe we are innocent of wrongdoing I expect the Prem/the panel to try and screw us over with the result that we see them in court - more years of waiting. My second thought is that the panel are telling the Prem there's nothing of substance that can be held against us in the evidence but the Prem are begging us in reverse to accept some form of sanction that causes minimum damage to all. We should not accept responsibility for things we haven't done. The Prem therefore says nothing because they believe the longer they keep this dark cloud created by them in place it'll continue to harm us.
Click to expand...
James Chadwin QC, represented Peter Sutcliffe. Fairly sure he thought there was an element of “wrongdoing “ with his client.

Pannick represented Boris Johnson. And lost.

He won’t care whether we’re wrong or right - he’ll present our case to the best of his abilities. And duties.
 
blueste41 said:
Regardless of when and what the verdict is it will forever more affect out image.
Click to expand...
Maybe in the UK but elsewhere maybe not, although I couldn't name the last say 10 clubs to lose points from transgressions.

The only 2 cases of cheating on a major scale that I can remember which resulted in relegation (I'm in no way suggesting this could happen to us) are Marseille in the mid 90's and Juve about 10 years later. Neither of those are ever talked about in the UK.
 
blue b4 the moon said:
Maybe in the UK but elsewhere maybe not, although I couldn't name the last say 10 clubs to lose points from transgressions.

The only 2 cases of cheating on a major scale that I can remember which resulted in relegation (I'm in no way suggesting this could happen to us) are Marseille in the mid 90's and Juve about 10 years later. Neither of those are ever talked about in the UK.
Click to expand...
Rangers?
 
johnnytapia said:
James Chadwin QC, represented Peter Sutcliffe. Fairly sure he thought there was an element of “wrongdoing “ with his client.

Pannick represented Boris Johnson. And lost.

He won’t care whether we’re wrong or right - he’ll present our case to the best of his abilities. And duties.
Click to expand...
Pannick represented HH Sheikh Mansour's father-in-law, Dubai ruler HH Sheikh Mohammed, in his divorce case. And lost.

Sheikh Mohammed was accused of ordering the abduction and forced return of his daughters, intimidating his ex-wife after she fled to the UK, and using Pegasus spyware against Princess Haya, her lawyers and associates. Lord Pannick described these as findings of "bad behaviour".
 
Last edited:
HarrytheBlue said:
Kangaroo court - Arsenal the main complainer - their headed paper. Yet the Prem allowed the so-called Independent Panel to be chosen by an Arsenal club member and season ticket holder. Colossal mistake. Just my opinion here, but I believe that David Pannick would not risk his world class reputation if he thought there was evidence of wrongdoing. If he found evidence of wrongdoing he would have plea bargained years ago relative to the scale of things and explained that to the club beforehand, but that hasn't happened. We demolished UEFA at CAS when they tried to screw us over with stolen, tampered with and out-of-date so-called evidence. We were happy to take the fine for non-cooperation - why cooperate with a bent organisation trying to screw us over........??????

I don't trust the panel to treat us fairly with the red cartel pushing them/the Prem to get rid of us so although I believe we are innocent of wrongdoing I expect the Prem/the panel to try and screw us over with the result that we see them in court - more years of waiting. My second thought is that the panel are telling the Prem there's nothing of substance that can be held against us in the evidence but the Prem are begging us in reverse to accept some form of sanction that causes minimum damage to all. We should not accept responsibility for things we haven't done. The Prem therefore says nothing because they believe the longer they keep this dark cloud created by them in place it'll continue to harm us.
Click to expand...
 
Keith Moon said:
Pannick represented HH Sheikh Mansour's father-in-law, Dubai ruler HH Sheikh Mohammed, in his divorce case. And lost.

Sheikh Mohammed was accused of ordering the abduction and forced return of his daughters, intimidating his ex-wife after she fled to the UK, and using Pegasus spyware against Princess Haya, her lawyers and associates. Lord Pannick described these as findings of "bad behavior".
Click to expand...
If you're here what village is missing its idiot?
 
blue b4 the moon said:
Maybe in the UK but elsewhere maybe not, although I couldn't name the last say 10 clubs to lose points from transgressions.

The only 2 cases of cheating on a major scale that I can remember which resulted in relegation (I'm in no way suggesting this could happen to us) are Marseille in the mid 90's and Juve about 10 years later. Neither of those are ever talked about in the UK.
Click to expand...
They were for match fixing. I am sure no other club in the world has been relegated for investing too much money and not having a huge debt! Just the corrupt PL.
 
Norbiton said:
As with the anticipated objections that we might win by paying people off, the question is why would political influence be brought to bear at this stage when it would be far more effective to kill the whole thing off before charges were brought? A discrete word in the ear that simply accepting the CAS verdict would be of great benefit to the country and arise Sir Richard Masters.
Click to expand...
You have to remember that city are charged with our owner spending his own money and allegedly the creative nonsense needed to enable him to spend his own money and that's it.

With city the club got its investment and started to do big things. The Premier League then made rules against it and well the accusation is whether city used creative means to get around those rules. That's how stupid this really is, it isn't that we cheated, it's that we broke a set of rules which were specifically designed to stop us.

Our ownership were never going to accept those rules. Even if we're found guilty then I really don't care. We won everything on sporting merit and on the same terms as anybody else. Other clubs have similar stories, United have a ton of debt and at one point Barcelona spent so much that they couldn't afford to pay their own players. These are the kind of clubs who claim that we cheat.

You only have to look at our net transfer spend too, we're 6th in the league and so with the titles and trophies that we've won we're surely massive overachievers. Arsenal meanwhile are 2nd on that list and they've won just 1 title, that's it... They may not be cheaters in their own eyes but they're bloody awful at spending money.
 
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