PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

halfcenturyup said:
:) Fair enough. The confirmation of your understanding of the situation is noted. Again.

Tbf, and fwiw, I did say I think you are probably right.

It's just the absolute certainty and the dismissal of anyone else's input that rankles. It happens a lot on here, and in the wider world, these days.
Click to expand...

When relying on sources then I always remind myself of Sturridge who was banned and fined after being found guilty of providing his brother with inside information on a potential move from Liverpool to Sevilla in 2018.

As we know Sturridge never signed for Sevilla.

There are genuine ITKs who are fed wrong information due to unforeseen circumstances, some fed wrong information deliberately. You never know which one until after.
 
Last edited:
slbsn said:
But even if none of the above was true, the actual lead KC told everyone here what the situation was about 10 days ago. You don't need to speculate at that point. And there is no possibility Pannick would lie or mislead. His reply was unequivocal. Just fucking accept it.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure why you are so unequivocally convinced that email purporting to be from Pannick is bona fide, unless you’ve had a PM and/or email corroborating it as such.

Not saying you’re necessarily wrong; I was sceptical personally for reasons that I previously outlined, but I’m not especially arsed if I am because I’m not formally and professionally putting my name to what I was saying on the matter, and because being wrong about something like that isn’t the end of the world, at least from my perspective, but I’m bound to wonder where that level of absolute certainty comes from (unless there’s something subsequent in this thread that I’ve missed).
 
tolmie's hairdoo said:
If the Premier League are successful it will be released 10.00am.

If City are successful it will be released at 10.00am.

The papers already have crash editions written up for both outcomes and background.
Click to expand...

MANCHESTER CITY GUILTY of one out of the 130 charges. They've been unequivocally cleared of the other 129 and their only crime was the grass being too long for an FA cup tie against Port Vale.

MANCHESTER CITY GUILTY.

Guessing the headlines look something like these.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
I’m not sure why you are so unequivocally convinced that email purporting to be from Pannick is bona fide, unless you’ve had a PM and/or email corroborating it as such.

Not saying you’re necessarily wrong; I was sceptical personally for reasons that I previously outlined, but I’m not especially arsed if I am because I’m not formally and professionally putting my name to what I was saying on the matter, and because being wrong about something like that isn’t the end of the world, at least from my perspective, but I’m bound to wonder where that level of absolute certainty comes from (unless there’s something subsequent in this thread that I’ve missed).
Click to expand...
Having seen the email exchange and checked multiple elements of it (things like the working linkedin link), I think it is real. On top of that it matches exactly what other sources have said.

As for being wrong, if I am wrong, I am wrong. Who cares. But as it is I am trying, in good faith, to help fans understand the situation and to not be mislead by people claiming things that I do not believe to be true based on my information.
 
slbsn said:
Having seen the email exchange and checked multiple elements of it (things like the working linkedin link), I think it is real. On top of that it matches exactly what other sources have said.

As for being wrong, if I am wrong, I am wrong. Who cares. But as it is I am trying, in good faith, to help fans understand the situation and to not be mislead by people claiming things that I do not believe to be true based on my information.
Click to expand...
Not arguing with anything in your second paragraph, just wondered why you were so unshakeably sure and assumed it was something extraneous to what has been posted in here (other than its contents being in accordance with other sources).
 
spinney said:
Some while back it was said ( on here ) that after the announcement that won't be the end of things because the loser was bound to appeal , I wonder if the delay now is due to a kind of arbitration going on in the background so that when the announcement does come it will really be the end of the matter ( hopefully ! ! )
Click to expand...
No! The possibility of an appeal would only be if procedure hadn't been followed
There cant be background arbitration as both parties, as of last Friday, haven't had the verdict
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Not arguing with anything in your second paragraph, just wondered why you were so unshakeably sure and assumed it was something extraneous to what has been posted in here (other than its contents being in accordance with other sources).
Click to expand...
To be clear, I was sent the actual email exchange - with its metadata and links etc (not just a screenshot). I also ran a check for any inconsistencies and none were found. It is real.
 
eajw said:
They might not know the decision, but surely the lawyers who were in the hearing have a good idea of the outcome? I.e the PL’s evidence was thrown out or called baseless. Journos who report on Supreme Court trials always have a fairly sure idea which way it’ll fall just hearing the judges questioning.
Click to expand...
@slbsn i.e Assurances give to Haaland before contract renewal would align with this
 
117 M34 said:
Let's say we are cleared of all the financial stuff but found guilty of non cooperation and get a £10m fine.
If we appeal the fine, does that appeal then look at all the charges again meaning we could be done for more after an appeal or would it just look at the parts we are arguing about?
Click to expand...
No, first is the verdict, then you can appeal the verdict if a matter of law like an error has occured. After that it's the punishment award, then you can appeal that as well if it's too harsh and £10m fine for non coo-operation is too harsh
 
ayrshire_blue said:
MANCHESTER CITY GUILTY of one out of the 130 charges. They've been unequivocally cleared of the other 129 and their only crime was the grass being too long for an FA cup tie against Port Vale.

MANCHESTER CITY GUILTY.

Guessing the headlines look something like these.
Click to expand...

Must be the grass is too tall charge!

Rains enough in Manchester that it grows at a crazy speed.
 
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