PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Maly]

Your putting a lot of pressure on the man. Perhaps he has another life and can’t be here taking questions constantly.
Just a thought.

You mean he he has a proper job with a contract, along with the under the table contract he has with Ric?

Shhhhhh, don’t tell the Premier League, they’ll be coming after Bluemoon next

 

[Jam Tomorrow]

Just read that Lord Pannick is an Arsenal fan, for some reason that seems positive. He can have a chat with the panel chair also an Arsenal fan, over drinks at the Emirates and make sure everyone gets what they need.

 

[bluealf]

Your putting a lot of pressure on the man. Perhaps he has another life and can’t be here taking questions constantly.
Just a thought.

He hasn't :)

 

[Len Rum]

I doubt it. For one thing there's no limitation clause in the PL rules. And, for another, as petrusha explained, if there's a potential suspicion of criminality, any limitation probably isn't valid anyway.

OK
But the PL rules are subject to English Law.
So which takes precedence - the no limitation rule of the PL or the six year statute in English Law?
And some of the issues like the Mancini salary could arguably fall by the wayside wrt materiality.

 

[BringBackSwales]

Your putting a lot of pressure on the man. Perhaps he has another life and can’t be here taking questions constantly.
Just a thought.

He’s a right lazy fucker

 

[Brendan110_0]

My take on that section is that CAS are basically saying that there can be significant consequences should someone not fully disclose when requested

Unless I have missed something in another section of the CAS narrative it seemed that UEFA made a request to have be given sight of an un redacted full run of the emails that request was never met but because UEFA didn’t in effect properly follow up no adverse conclusion could be taken from the non production.

Yeah, asking to see the e-mail trail, sorry, GPDR, there's a law for that.

 

[Len Rum]

No time barred for premier league stuff it seems mate, although City were happy to show all items and time barred documents at CAS as well anyway.

But PL rules are subject to English Law which does have a time bar.
Which takes precedence?

 

[richards30]

But PL rules are subject to English Law which does have a time bar.
Which takes precedence?

I guess it may depend on the severity of the charges?

 

[Maldeika]

So you don't believe that your major sponsors - who are also shareholders - don't get to influence anything? Because major donors to, say, political parties, only do it out of altruistic motives and don't expect anything back in return of course.

In that case I've got a bridge in London you might be interested in buying.

Yes, they want something back. They do not just give money to Bayern for charity - they want an advertising effect. No matter if it is one of the companies that have shares or the other ones that do not. That is the sense of sponsorships. What that has to do with political parties does not really make a sense for me.

Just - why should one of the 3 shareholders that have 7 to 8 per cent shares overpay with their sponsorship deals? If they pay 100 EUR more - and it would totally come back as a profit that is paid out to the shareholders - they would get back 7 EUR - 93 EUR would go to the other 2 shareholders and the club. Yes, they want to help run the club magazine for the fans and the other branches the club has like table tennis or bowling...

 

[paska]

Their profits dwarf ours. The UK arm alone has a profit margin of £2.2 billion.

Again, the comment I replied to was about a single store. Now you’re saying the UK arm. Every time you go back and forth between the two!