PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

The Future’s Blue! said:
At this rate they’ll be time barred from realising the findings!
Click to expand...
Wouldn't that be funny!

I think the PL have lost on all 115 counts (or however many it is this week) and are hoping that if they leave it long enough everybody will eventually forget about it.
 
Pablo ZZZ Peroni said:
Stirrings yesterday evening from Ziegler (not 115):

Premier League facing rebellion over proposed financial reforms​


Clubs believe votes over proposed squad-cost ratio regulation, which would limit spending on wages and transfers to 85 per cent of revenue, may be abandoned​

Article here:

Click to expand...
"Under the SCR plan, clubs would be hit with sporting sanctions for spending 115 per cent or more of their revenues on player and agent costs"
 
The Scarlet Pimpernel said:
Why don’t them cram internationals in either at the start or the end of the season for however long they need - 8 weeks or whatever the season is broken up with this nonsense and get them out of the way ?!?

It’s a toss up which is more boring 115 or international break ?
Click to expand...
You think the clubs will give up the preseason money making tours? Don't forget that the rags had their first ever postseason tour last summer, although it seemed to be a resounding failure I wouldn't be surprised to see other clubs trying it in the future.
 
Gordyola said:
"Under the SCR plan, clubs would be hit with sporting sanctions for spending 115 per cent or more of their revenues on player and agent costs"
Click to expand...
So there is to be a PL meeting next Friday, 115 has to be on the agenda and that makes tomorrow hot favourite for the waters to break - I'm calling it now:-)
 
johnny crossan said:
Which part of it explains why?
Click to expand...

The whole thing.

I.e the length of it, and the multiple clauses, sub clauses and elaborations of them.

And that's a point on the nature of it, rather than slbsn's narrative. Which I get he is expanding on for the layman, but even without the colloquialisms, there is juat that much to cover. And that's just on the process, not the content.
 
Coatigan said:
The whole thing.

I.e the length of it, and the multiple clauses, sub clauses and elaborations of them.

And that's a point on the nature of it, rather than slbsn's narrative. Which I get he is expanding on for the layman, but even without the colloquialisms, there is juat that much to cover. And that's just on the process, not the content.
Click to expand...
The 'Why' was omitted from the title for a reason. I once encountered a 240 page structuralist explanation of making a cup of tea - all of the panel process should have been contained within a reasonable timeframe and it hasn't. There are clearly extra factors in play here which are not described in the article of which the primary one I believe is PL lobbying for time to organise their damage limitation exercise. At a cost of further unnecessary reputational damage to us btw.
 
It doesn’t take this long to write up that we’re innocent.

We could be in for a horror show of a verdict when it finally drops.
 
brian the blue said:
It doesn’t take this long to write up that we’re innocent.

We could be in for a horror show of a verdict when it finally drops.
Click to expand...
It'll take exactly the same time as a guilty on all charges decision will take. Regardless of their decision, they have to fully justify each and every single point and leave no room for interpretation or doubt as to their thinking.

Not that that'll stop certain media from attempting that.
 
johnny crossan said:
The 'Why' was omitted from the title for a reason. I once encountered a 240 page structuralist explanation of making a cup of tea - all of the panel process should have been contained within a reasonable timeframe and it hasn't. There are clearly extra factors in play here which are not described in the article of which the primary one I believe is PL lobbying for time to organise their damage limitation exercise. At a cost of further unnecessary reputational damage to us btw.
Click to expand...
Do you honestly believe that if that was the case, that the club wouldn't be aware? Why would we not just say "sod that for a game of soldiers" and release everything?
 
johnny crossan said:
Which part of it explains why?
Click to expand...

Tbf, I think we all understood why it would take a long time. Personally, I would suggest the time taken doesn't depend the outcome (unless the allegations were dismissed out of hand, which was never likely to happen): it's a highly sensitive and politicised case whichever way the judgment hangs: either accusing international politicians and businessmen of fraud or denying a group of clubs (those that pretty much run the PL) the right to claim tens or hundreds of millions in compensation. The judgment will have to stand up to intense scrutiny whichever way it falls. So I'm not sure anything can be read into the time it's taking.

I also think we now all agree that it has taken longer than "expected" because of "unknown reasons". It has taken some of us longer to come to that conclusion than it has others, but that is normal. It would be beneficial to have some discussion of what these unknown reasons could be. Again imh and poorly-informed o, any complicated legal issue can be discounted in this case. At it's heart, it's quite simple isn't it? The APT case was much more complicated, surely? Health issues of a panel member can't be discounted, but would surely be known about in legal circles. Case load? Again, that wouldn't be unknown, would it? I really can't imagine lawyers working every day in that environment haven't worked out yet who the three panel members are. So what is left?
 
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