PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Legacyfan1986]

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Do we get another charge for booing their pre-match anthem and later singing "Fuck the Premier League"?

I was saying boo-urns.

 

[halfcenturyup]

I take issue with this, especially the last sentence. Indeed, I resent being labelled by implication as hard of thinking. My reasons are stated in this 1,700-word post from yesterday: https://forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk/threads/media-thread-2022-23.355624/page-1628#post-15718654

Yes, I can imagine.

But I am still struggling with it, in all honesty. As it's a legal process, though, I suppose it's best to let the legal guys explain it.

 

[Gordyola]

I'm pretty certain it was the PL who errored in their press release as they later quietly changed the release to the correct rule numbers, if it was everyone else misreading it I doubt they would have changed it.
I do think that's pretty irrelevant though, the people actually running the case aren't the same people writing the press releases so all the legal documents will be correct (you'd hope).
It does show a degree of sloppiness though, you'd think for such an unprecedented statement someone from the legal team would have had a bit of a proofread.

The number of the rules can charge each season and led to some confusion on what exactly the charges were especially when the not every rule book were available online
Yes they did correct some of the charges but it didn’t lead to the long grass etc

 

[halfcenturyup]

I think the references are from the latest version of the rules, and posters here have looked back to the correct set of rules in force at the time and noticed the references are wrong. To me that suggests the opposite to your proposition, and that the charges have been brought up now and hence use the current references.

I’m not sure if the incorrect list of charges is just from a statement, where perhaps the references have been restated to the latest rules for the ease of understanding, and the actual charges have been properly stated to City, or not. Either way it’s confusing.

I think the only thing it shows is that, like their referees and everything else about them, they aren't very competent.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Ok. And if you need any assistance in your defamation claim against @petrusha then drop me a PM…

Yes. That was slanderous, or was it libellous. Or fraudulent. It's all so confusing .......

 

[SouthStandStander]

Just watched this. Cheesy talks to an MP. Who's a blue. He's pissed off with what's happened. Says it how it is. Good listen.

 

[Elbow beards]

View attachment 68949

@gordondaviesmoustache look at this blatant Americanism!! Surely that should be two fingers.

 

[ayrshire_blue]

Yes, I can imagine.

But I am still struggling with it, in all honesty. As it's a legal process, though, I suppose it's best to let the legal guys explain it.

You're doing better than me mate.

It's honestly way over my head, and regardless of how simplistic some people try and explain it then I still can't really grasp what's about to take place.

I understand at a basic level that we are charged with deliberately lying on our accounts for a period of at least 9 years.

I don't understand in what way, I don't understand anything about how likely/unlikely or even to which standard that has to be proven and to top it off, if found guilty of the most serious charges (or all), we're talking anything from a fine and a transfer ban to the stripping of titles...surely someone would know the most likely end result if a panel decision goes against us.

Whole thing leaves me wondering what the fuck is going on tbh. Wake me up in 2027.

 

[GaudinoMotors]

Yes. That was slanderous, or was it libellous. Or fraudulent. It's all so confusing .......

Whatever it is - you have the burden of proof...........I think ;-)