eversince 76
Well-Known Member
The number mate. Look at the number. 115 charges. If that doesn’t do the trick for the FA and the red envy cartel, the number of 115 is bad faith enough.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
City launch legal action against the Premier League | City win APT case (pg901)
- Thread starter denislawsbackheel
- Start date
also when you think about it the whole case is bad faith, they could have quite simply asked the club to refute the accusations made against us in a private setting and provide the evidence necessary, they chose not to do that, they chose to make it public, they have chosen to publicly insinuate that royalty, countries, massive investment vehicles, highly prominent businessman have been cooking the books for multiple years on the basis of 6 out of context emails, they have chosen to publicly smear the reputation of one of the founder members of the pl and also the previously mentioned people while at the same time privately dealing with a number of cases relating to certain other clubs, if that isnt acting in bad faith im not sure what is.I think it would be very difficult to get damages if we were acquitted of the 115. The PL would maintain they were just doing their job. We would need to show bad faith. Perhaps the emails disclose something, otherwise we could be whistling in the dark.
richards30
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 20 May 2009
- Messages
- 27,914
Surely not if we can prove they weren’t doing their job, in fact they were in cahoots with competitors.
Thats the story that the red top media is ignoring or refusing to think maybe possible? Just imagine that the premier league had indeed been complicit in targeting City and their owners by colluding with the american owners?
Agree. I am sure as well that at some point or other a player will have decided against joining us and joined a rival partly due to having doubts about any potential punishment. Yes, we've coped pretty well and signed alternatives, but who knows if a player could have specifically said no because of the charges? Maybe we'd even have that info already.I would be stunned if there isnt one juicy comment or negative comment about gulf money or stopping City or changing rules etc in their emails or whatsapp.
as i have always said, why isnt every club subject to the forensic level of investigation that city were on the basis of some out of context evidence, why werent liverpool subject to the same liverpool of financial scrutiny after the stanley park fiasco, why havent the rags been investigated after failing uefas ffp regs, im not saying that any of them are guilty just that they should have been subject to the same level of investigation that we have been and the question should be asked why that hasnt been the case.Thats the story that the red top media is ignoring or refusing to think maybe possible? Just imagine that the premier league had indeed been complicit in targeting City and their owners by colluding with the american owners?
SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 89,064
Oh do one you rag ****.Don't understand that surely the rule applies to all the other clubs
Centurions
Well-Known Member
I think you're getting the two cases mixed up? The damages have been mentioned in relation to this current case where we've taken the PL to task for the APT(sp?) changes, that's nothing to do with the November hearing (presumably).I think it would be very difficult to get damages if we were acquitted of the 115. The PL would maintain they were just doing their job. We would need to show bad faith. Perhaps the emails disclose something, otherwise we could be whistling in the dark.
Last edited:
Blue Maverick
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 6 Aug 2010
- Messages
- 21,686
Because of the hacked emails, however had they been of the others I reckon they’d be inadmissible somehowas i have always said, why isnt every club subject to the forensic level of investigation that city were on the basis of some out of context evidence, why werent liverpool subject to the same liverpool of financial scrutiny after the stanley park fiasco, why havent the rags been investigated after failing uefas ffp regs, im not saying that any of them are guilty just that they should have been subject to the same level of investigation that we have been and the question should be asked why that hasnt been the case.
But there in lies the point, they continued down the route of this investigation despite it being thrown by the highest sports related court in europe due to lack of evidence, so they continued this forensic backdated investigation into our finances despite having very little recourse to do so yet when certain clubs have financial irregularities which would give them the same amount of reason to do a deep dive into their finances the response predictable has been nothing to see here.Because of the hacked emails, however had they been of the others I reckon they’d be inadmissible somehow
Nope. See #5594 to which this is a reply.I think you're getting the two case mixed up? The damages have been mentioned in relation to this current case where we've taken the PL to task for the APT(sp?) changes, that's nothing to do with the November hearing (presumably).