PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

slbsn said:
Fact: The new IFR will have absolutely zero involvement in the case. And that the IFR will intervene outside of its remit having just been set up is another fantasy conspiracy theory. Utter nonsense.
Click to expand...
The IFR will have no involvement in the legal case. But it could get involved in the PR fall-out. There will need to be some sort of peace process between the PL and City moving forward. Someone will have to mediate that. There is always a political backdrop.
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
The IFR will have no involvement in the legal case. But it could get involved in the PR fall-out. There will need to be some sort of peace process between the PL and City moving forward. Someone will have to mediate that. There is always a political backdrop.
Click to expand...
The IFR won't be involved in that either. It is simply not its role or purpose. Read the Act to learn more about what it can and can't do. Its remit is specific. It could get involved in deeming owners to be unfit though but I don't think you have that in mind. They are not a mediator.
 
Earlyriser said:
I think in a case such as this there might be degrees of guilt, perhaps surprising, and therefore any sentence should reflect that. Perhaps those driving this case did not agree with this view and wanted the nuclear option in sentencing. Pure speculation I know but something has been going on for such a delay
Click to expand...
Remember there is no sentencing, this is just the judgement. The punishment, if any, comes later so the delay isn’t down to the severity of the punishment.
 
jaiguruKun said:
Silly me, I must have missed the charges being dropped.
Click to expand...
It's nothing to do with the charges being dropped. Can't some of you get that. It's all to do with the verdict or any punishment that might be delivered. If you cannot grasp that and the potential loss of face to Abu Dhabi should Man City be found guilty and the potential implications for the UK you must live on another planet.
You must be as ill-informed as those who claimed Andy Burnham had no say in the Policing of Manchester
 
Earlyriser said:
It demonstrates that on balance a Govt does interfere in Court judgements. So do you think they would possibly not interfere/ lean on in a poxy judgement from a tribunal on a football matter given its political implications.
Click to expand...
It doesn't. Again perhaps you haven't read it. It absolutely does not demonstrate or even provide any evidence at all that Govt interfered with the Supreme Court. It doesn't even make an allegation of that.

“Correlation does not necessarily equate to causation, and we have no wish to level any accusation at the Supreme Court. The above evidence, however, creates a troubling impression in the light of the executive’s recent approach towards the judiciary.” The "evidence" here are the numbers as opposed to actual evidence.

Plus tiny sample size and simply a view of an all-party parliamentary group.

In any event, irrelevant to the matter in hand.

As I said earlier, any intervention would have come much earlier and before the start of the hearing itself.
 
bladdered said:
View attachment 171752
Click to expand...
don't think we've done old cleaning products yet, have we?
s-l300.jpg
 
Kinkys Left Foot said:
He apparently also couldn't say anything about the "void and unenforceable" rules including "interest free shareholder loans" Arsenal were getting from their owner which we now know were assessed and ruled that they should have been subject to "fair market value" which the PL let them get away with for years whilst at the same time behaving like absolute cunts towards our owners (unlawful, unlawful, unfair) and blocking our business transactions. The hypocrisy of these cunts knows no bounds.
Click to expand...
It's not hypocrisy, it's calculated dishonesty.
 
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