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...
I'm sure the delay is due to the amount of stuff being written up and the fact the guys have other commitments too. But lets not forget the fact that Starmer recently visited the UAE to discuss relations. He was met by Khaldoon off the plane and walked on a nice Blue carpet.

Although some may say it's just coincidence but I'm sure at some point during those conversations, a word was had with Starmer
 
crystal_mais said:
I'm sure the delay is due to the amount of stuff being written up and the fact the guys have other commitments too. But lets not forget the fact that Starmer recently visited the UAE to discuss relations. He was met by Khaldoon off the plane and walked on a nice Blue carpet.

Although some may say it's just coincidence but I'm sure at some point during those conversations, a word was had with Starmer
Click to expand...
Was it "****"?
 
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...
Sutcliffe - his lawyer argued for a lesser conviction - diminished responsibility if I recall correctly because he was schizophrenic.

Yes, he represented Bozo on the misleading of parliament issue (lost) and he also represented Gina Miller in her assertion that Johnson's decision to prorogue parliament was unlawful. Supreme court - Pannick won.

So yes, he presented the club's case as best he can, but I believe he would have advised the club if he believed that there was wrongdoing in some areas - intentional or otherwise. The club is not behaving in a way that would suggest this to be the case. Look at some of the other clubs that have been sanctioned by the Prem/the EFL - I don't hear many claiming innocence. Their gripe seems to be about the severity of the sanctions while our club hasn't faced any such verdict.

My worry is that the bent Prem's anti-competitive rules can be interpreted to suit them as this isn't a court of law.
 
HarrytheBlue said:
Sutcliffe - his lawyer argued for a lesser conviction - diminished responsibility if I recall correctly because he was schizophrenic.

Yes, he represented Bozo on the misleading of parliament issue (lost) and he also represented Gina Miller in her assertion that Johnson's decision to prorogue parliament was unlawful. Supreme court - Pannick won.

So yes, he presented the club's case as best he can, but I believe he would have advised the club if he believed that there was wrongdoing in some areas - intentional or otherwise. The club is not behaving in a way that would suggest this to be the case. Look at some of the other clubs that have been sanctioned by the Prem/the EFL - I don't hear many claiming innocence. Their gripe seems to be about the severity of the sanctions while our club hasn't faced any such verdict.

My worry is that the bent Prem's anti-competitive rules can be interpreted to suit them as this isn't a court of law.
Click to expand...
My point was that Pannick (and hundreds of other KCs) has taken cases of people / organisations with little / no regard for how that might affect perceptions of his own standing.
He’s there to present the best case possible for City. He may think we’re bang to rights. Wouldn’t make an iota of difference to how diligently he fought / fights our corner.
 
crystal_mais said:
I'm sure the delay is due to the amount of stuff being written up and the fact the guys have other commitments too. But lets not forget the fact that Starmer recently visited the UAE to discuss relations. He was met by Khaldoon off the plane and walked on a nice Blue carpet.

Although some may say it's just coincidence but I'm sure at some point during those conversations, a word was had with Starmer
Click to expand...
Yep. I'm not sure how it would have come up but imagine how that relationship changes if the business that Khaldoon is a chairman of is declared as a cheat by a major UK entity... The UAE are very sensitive when it comes to reputational damage. When you look at how the UK has bent for Trump and China, I can see it being quashed fast, especially given the rules have no actual legal standing and they're just sporting rules.

I reckon that much of what's happening behind the scenes now is about massaging everything around that. City also have a right to appeal so I know some are thinking that an outcome is imminent but getting to an end point where that outcome is final is a million miles away.

It just isn't going to be allowed to happen even if the reasons behind it do look dodgy as hell.

'In one email, a leading City lawyer wrote that Khaldoon al Mubarak, the club’s chairman, had said that “he would rather spend 30million on the 50 best lawyers in the world to sue them for the next 10 years” than agree to any financial settlement or penalty from UEFA.'

 
Last edited:
crystal_mais said:
I'm sure the delay is due to the amount of stuff being written up and the fact the guys have other commitments too. But lets not forget the fact that Starmer recently visited the UAE to discuss relations. He was met by Khaldoon off the plane and walked on a nice Blue carpet.

Although some may say it's just coincidence but I'm sure at some point during those conversations, a word was had with Starmer
Click to expand...
Fuck me I wouldn’t be relying on Starmer to tell me what day it was never mind him sorting something as big as this, mate.
 
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...
Is this the new Star Wars film?
 
we’re just over a week away from the World Cup.
The charges were brought not too long after the last World Cup.
The hearing finished ages ago.

But we’re still waiting.
We’re never going to get a fucking verdict are we?
 
johnnytapia said:
My point was that Pannick (and hundreds of other KCs) has taken cases of people / organisations with little / no regard for how that might affect perceptions of his own standing.
He’s there to present the best case possible for City. He may think we’re bang to rights. Wouldn’t make an iota of difference to how diligently he fought / fights our corner.
Click to expand...
If Pannick believes the club's bang to rights he'll have told them - wouldn't bother him one way or the other. In fact, he would have an absolute obligation to tell them if he thinks they're bang to rights, including possible next steps. To me, the club hasn't behaved as though Pannick has given them unwanted news. This would have occurred years ago. At the end of the hearing the club was talking about its 'comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence'. Through all the subsequent mudslinging, the club has maintained a dignified silence - albeit crafty journalists have constantly tried to get Pep to speak on the matter.
 
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