City launch legal action against the Premier League | Unconfirmed reports that City have secured "potentially significant victory" (p 808)

[citizen_maine]

& we did but once it became common knowledge that a club illegally hacked & profited then surely it’s a far bigger concern than Mancini being paid by another club.

...but if it's been settled per the agreed rules...

 

[Colin Bells Boots]

Agree with everything you wrote but want to make a point about when you say he is not 'City oriented'.

I know a couple of older blues who completely buy the MSM bullshit and are of the opinion that City are guilty because there's no smoke without fire.

I spent a frustrating couple of hours before the cup final trying to explain to one of them why there's a good chance we are innocent. I patiently explained the UEFA case and CAS judgement and the circumstances around the PL charges, all to no avail.

I fear the media has done such a good job demonising us, that innocent as I believe us to be, much of the muck thrown at us will stick.

Was that ever going to be different ?

This is a concerted besmirching of the club at the behest of the redshirt/yank consortium.

 

[Blueeye]

Do you not understand that the rule applies to the other clubs but does not affect the other clubs?

Which means the rule was written to specifically apply to the types of relationships CIty and Newcastle have with their sponsors and nobody else. Can you not see how inherently unfair that is?

If this was done in any other business such rules would be held up as racist or certainly challenged and the rules would be spirited away in light they were clearly discriminatory in nature and aimed at one set of owners only based on their geographical location.

The fact you cannot see that tells me your view comes from one that is certainly not City oriented. We have had one set of rules after another introduced by the red shirts and their lackeys to prevent City progress. First it was "Stop spending", with FFP, then it was PSR with the 3 year spending limits. They realised that particular horse has well and truly bolted as Citys income now outperforms theirs. So now its target "Income" streams with the original APT and FMV. City were just about getting by with this as the clearly legally recognised IAS24 and its definitions was workable. But now theyve introduced their own set of legally unrecognised rules that have been tailored to middle eastern ownership and CIty are not having it.

Can you understand that?

At last someone gives a clear reply to a complicated issue rather than insulting. I do get it now thanks

 

[ArdwickAlbert]

:) Appreciate everybody's efforts in trying to educate me. I get most of it, but I am still not seeing how this large disclosure is relevant to the 115 case, other than very obliquely. In fact, i would say it is irrelevant. It must just be me. Probably why accountants are always being screwed by lawyers :)

Might it be linked to the non-cooperation and establishing that the reason for our behaviour and reluctance to share is we believe it to be a vexatious request and the result of partiality, which correspondence may validate?

 

[halfcenturyup]

Might it be linked to the non-cooperation and establishing that the reason for our behaviour and reluctance to share is we believe it to be a vexatious request and the result of partiality, which correspondence may validate?

Maybe. But the club was told by the Appeals Court to comply with information requests, wasn't it? I suppose we will find out sooner or later. :)

 

[cheekybids]

...but if it's been settled per the agreed rules...

I know what you are saying but that’s settled with us. Not settled with the other 18 clubs affected.
Also is it a question that they falsified their accounts?

 

[ArdwickAlbert]

Maybe. But the club was told by the Appeals Court to comply with information requests, wasn't it? I suppose we will find out sooner or later. :)

Yes, it was told, but we still got charged so there's something that still needs defending.

 

[citizen_maine]

I know what you are saying but that’s settled with us. Not settled with the other 18 clubs affected.
Also is it a question that they falsified their accounts?

All 20 clubs abide by those rules, so if two clubs sort it out between them , the others have agreed to abide by it.
Let it go - nothing is going to come of it.

 

[cheekybids]

All 20 clubs abide by those rules, so if two clubs sort it out between them , the others have agreed to abide by it.
Let it go - nothing is going to come of it.

I’ve let it go but I’m simply saying the club feels they’ve been victimised. I would much rather concentrate on the Stanley Park stadium costs.

 

[Plays By Sense Of Smell]

I'm always uneasy with clubs doing 'deals' like this.

Imagine if the dips had done something to a minor club which could have a major effect on other clubs and they took a couple of million pay-off.

Illegalities should be looked at by the Prem no matter if the clubs agree to settle.

Bit like civil and criminal action