PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

"Those aren't assumptions.

Yes they are.

Usually assumptions are made on the basis of evidence. Not just pulled out of thin air. Those would be “baseless assumptions”.

No they wouldn't.

An assumption is a provisional belief based on incomplete information. A baseless assumption is an assumption made without sufficient evidence, facts, or reasonable justification to support it.

Oh, I've had enough of this.

No, you haven't.

Oh, shut up."

I could do one on the use of the word "imminent" or "know" as well.
 
I find it impossible to believe we get off Scott-free, so every Tom, Dick & Harry will hang their hat on whatever little technical issue for which we have been deemed liable.

From there, whatever wrist slap is imposed will be lelieved to be bent, because we will have paid for it to not be a big sanction.

One expects that we will be cleared of the vast (overwhelming) majority of charges, but almost ANY charge for which we are found guilty will be the proverbial weight around the neck and deemed enough to strip us of all and sundry.

We are not dealing with objectivity here. Fans are tribal and the media has built its house on conflict, so I think we would do well to prepare for some serious tribal conflict when a decision is announced!

One wonders which WC game is being played when the verdict is dropped? Excellent Kalshi wager!!!
 
Bluewood said:
It’s been said before but seriously, a man as smart and powerful as Khaldoon doesn’t use the words he used today if he’s not supremely confident, I’d say near certain we’re winning this case. Nobody, even him will know for sure until the official verdict is announced, but he’ll know how the case played out and I’d be unbelievably surprised if we don’t see a positive outcome for City at this point.

I wanna say I genuinely cannot wait for the tears from rival fans and pundits when the verdict comes, but deep down i know it’ll just go from “Cheats,115” to “Cheats, You paid off the judges” haha.

Looking forward to moving on from this borefest anyways
Click to expand...
He will know if we have done anything wrong or not
 
i kne albert davy said:
Not sure City would leak anything, the premier league on the other hand and the cartel that runs it I believe would be screaming it from the roof tops if we're bang to rights.
Click to expand...
How much would the media pay for a leak of a guilty verdict £1m+, someone near (or not) retirement age could add a significant sum to their pension pot, yes there maybe legal consequences if you weren't protected by said media but someone would be tempted it's only human nature!
 
halfcenturyup said:
"Those aren't assumptions.

Yes they are.ould be “baseless assumptions”.

No they wouldn't.

An assumption is a provisional belief based on incomplete information. A baseless assumption is an assumption made without sufficient evidence, facts, or reasonable justification to support it.

Oh, I've had enough of this.

No, you haven't.

Oh, shut up."

I could do one on the use of the word "imminent" or "know" as well.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you are all forgetting the Marian Assumption and indeed the Meinongian one?
'One needs to be clear about these things.
 
johnnytapia said:
Disagree at your leisure. He cannot advise City on their culpability- he doesn’t know.
Click to expand...
I'd say Pannick would have to advise the club on culpability if that scenario emerged - vis-a-vis the possibility of the club misrepresenting itself and jeopardising any future proceedings such as an appeal etc. He's reading across our documents and the Prem's rules. He'll interpret the rules as best he can while advising the club that the panel may decide to interpret the rules differently. In my humble unqualified opinion, a legal ruling would put things to bed once and for all. At the moment it's just a kangaroo court with the panel members selected by an Arsenal club member and season ticket holder as I understand it. I'm not suggesting the panel would be unfair, but to me you cannot involve someone associated with the main complainer, Arsenal, in choosing the panel members. And before you say it, I know Pannick is known to support Arsenal.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Why would he be granted a super injunction? There might be reporting restrictions, but that’s not the same.
Click to expand...
Was quoting what was posted a few weeks ago. I’ve not the knowledge on the law you have but I did the subject at OND level about 50 years ago, I do remember Donoghue v Stevenson, Snail in the Ginger Beer bottle but precious little else so I stand corrected.
 
Sargecity said:
We really need a resolution to these charges. The comments section under any article about City reflects the damage done to our reputation. It’s amazing the rabid hatred rival fans have towards us, for allegedly spending a bit too much of our own money. For their own sakes, we need this sorted.
Click to expand...
Last time I looked, we are the Prem's seventh highest Prem net spenders of the last five years and the Prem's fourth highest Prem net spenders of the last ten/eleven years. The cartel doesn't like the fact that other clubs have caught up with their spending power and levelled the playing field to some extent.
 
Ho Chi Man City said:
Was quoting what was posted a few weeks ago. I’ve not the knowledge on the law you have but I did the subject at OND level about 50 years ago, I do remember Donoghue v Stevenson, Snail in the Ginger Beer bottle but precious little else so I stand corrected.
Click to expand...
Not correcting you. Genuinely wondered if there were any grounds for a super injunction that I wasn’t aware of.

Yes Donahue & Stevenson. The foundation stone for claims for negligence: duty of care, breach of duty, causation, reasonable foreseeability and losses. Think that covers everything!
 
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