PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

slbsn said:
But even if you want to go on, we don't know the full list of issues but rest assured you haven't covered them all there nor are they as simple as you assert.

It is also complex because it combines commercial agreements, accounting practice, cash movements, potentially accounting standards, potentially valuations, multi year breaches and therefore questions of intepretation as to rules in any given year, forensic accounting, witness evidence across multiple companies on and on. It is so obviously a complex case.
Click to expand...
I share the view that we do not know the "full set of issues".

Khaldoon has stressed the difference between capital growth and cash extraction which seems a fundamental issue and difference between most American club owners and ours.

The legality of certain PL rules challenged by City have been proven illegal. There are complex related issues that will have been raised related to the above.

Increasingly I feel that City have used the charges to broaden the debate adding to the complexity beyond the intial charges. City taking the long view as confirmed yet again by Khaldoon.
 
Last edited:
There's no way it takes this long to decide whether we did or did not break some competition rules.
The PL will have to accuse the club of fraud, in which case we're off to court and they don't want to go there, whereas we are prepared to if Kahldoons words in the beginning are anything to go by.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Does anyone think this case is all that complex?
Click to expand...
The case itself looks to be simple enough but time consuming, however the outcome of the legal verdict may cause mayhem whatever it's result.

So maybe like some maths problems they secretly start with the result and try to reach an agreement before fully revealing it.

There again Rome wasn't built in a day but Mr K wasn't foreman on that job.
 
Sheikh rattle and roll said:
Yes obviously it is
Click to expand...

I was just joking, really, but answer me this. The complexity of the case and the ensuing complexity of the judgment is being used as a reason for the passing of 18 months since the hearing. So, if we are to believe that, one of these must be true:

Commentators were wrong to expect the judgment last summer because they underestimated the complexity of the case, the hearing and the judgment.

Or

They were right to expect the judgment last summer but somehow the level of complexity has increased significantly, and by significantly I mean in a way that has taken three times as long, so far, than was originally expected.

Which do we think it is? Are there any other alternatives?
 
halfcenturyup said:
I was just joking, really, but answer me this. The complexity of the case and the ensuing complexity of the judgment is being used as a reason for the passing of 18 months since the hearing. So, if we are to believe that, one of these must be true:

Commentators were wrong to expect the judgment last summer because they underestimated the complexity of the case, the hearing and the judgment.

Or

They were right to expect the judgment last summer but somehow the level of complexity has increased significantly, and by significantly I mean in a way that has taken three times as long, so far, than was originally expected.

Which do we think it is? Are there any other alternatives?
Click to expand...
I believe the PL are having to compromise with certain members whereas we are not, we're awaiting their next move.
 
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