PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Paladin]

Might explain why Howard Webb is cracking down on the incompetent showings we’ve seen recently & getting ahead of the narrative

Incompetence is one thing. This is alleged corruption.

 

[Dodge]

I've been hearing this sort of stuff loads of times on here. And when Liverpool won the league too wasn't there going to be some great reveal or something. I'm not doubting Dodge who I know personally but as you say, it really would be clutching at straws to get too excited about this sort of chinese whispers/rumours stuff. I'm not even sure that it would change much even if this recording did exist.

Thanks DD....I think ;)

It would depend on who the information has been passed to. If my information is correct, in one sentence, there is full vindication of the "clear and obvious" mantra that our club have put out there already.

It does make you wonder what what discussed in the EPL London meeting last week, and why it was reported that certain CEO's were more than happy to shake the hand of our CEO at said meeting....whilst certain others were cosied up gnashing their collective teeth.

We all slag the broadcasters off, but maybe...just maybe...we have the broadcasting whistleblower to end all whistleblowers.

Just sayin.

 

[Paladin]

Make of this what you will, but I've just been privy to some startling information that would blow the lid off PGMOL and the power brokers at the Premier League, if it became public. It involves a recording of a conversation between the match day referee and VAR official at a recent away match, a recording that is now in the hands of City.

It's my firm belief that City have compiled a dossier so incendiary, that the Premier League will have no choice but to totally exonerate the Club of any wrongdoing. If they don't, this is going nuclear. Either way, we hold all the cards and this explains why we're so bullish about the eventual outcome. The Premier League are on the back foot, and in my opinion, are currently lobbying the membership as to how best to quietly end the process. I have also been advised that at least one of the "Nasty 9" has had board level discussions with City, distancing themselves from the others in the cabal.

Pep's press conference tells us all we need to know. Watch it again, look at the anger and barely controllable rage in the mans eyes. His attitude wasn't based upon him being reassured about some poxy finances & bullshit charges, it was because he KNOWS exactly what is coming.

Sit back and enjoy the ride Blues.

What are the credentials of your second source - the board room level?

 

[oakiecokie]

this thread is going to go ballistic!

So will my testicles.

 

[MarsLlama]

It's merely a courtesy to another poster whom I don't know. I'm not defending him, but nor do I have any reason to think he's deliberately on a wind-up. I happen to think it sounds a bit too good to be true, but a bit of politeness costs nothing.

It doesn't cost nothing, because we end up in a situation where the transfer forum is littered with people making stuff up and nobody is allowed to call them out on it. Everyone is convinced stuff like Neymar to City or Henderson on a freebie was 'posted in good faith' too.

 

[ayrshire_blue]

Thanks DD....I think ;)

It would depend on who the information has been passed to. If my information is correct, in one sentence, there is full vindication of the "clear and obvious" mantra that our club have put out there already.

It does make you wonder what what discussed in the EPL London meeting last week, and why it was reported that certain CEO's were more than happy to shake the hand of our CEO at said meeting....whilst certain others were cosied up gnashing their collective teeth.

We all slag the broadcasters off, but maybe...just maybe...we have the broadcasting whistleblower to end all whistleblowers.

Just sayin.

Keep talking dirty.

 

[Jesus H Gabz]

Thanks DD....I think ;)

It would depend on who the information has been passed to. If my information is correct, in one sentence, there is full vindication of the "clear and obvious" mantra that our club have put out there already.

It does make you wonder what what discussed in the EPL London meeting last week, and why it was reported that certain CEO's were more than happy to shake the hand of our CEO at said meeting....whilst certain others were cosied up gnashing their collective teeth.

We all slag the broadcasters off, but maybe...just maybe...we have the broadcasting whistleblower to end all whistleblowers.

Just sayin.

Plot thickens I suppose, that would indicate the PL & Sky are at loggerheads, potentially over the next deal due in 2025, SSN did give plenty of airtime to the regurgitated ESL last week

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

If you have a top secret dossier full of kompromat, you don't wait until you've been very publicly charged with 115 offences and had your reputation destroyed in the media before using it.

You do if you want to be very publicly cleared?

 

[Chris in London]

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.

I'm 50 pages behind so someone might have answered this.

If not:

The relationship between City and the PL is essentially contractual. The regulations that govern our participation within that league are the terms of the contract. One of those terms is that in the event of an alleged breach of the rules the matter is referred to an independent panel, from which an appeal lies to a further panel.

We are said to be in breach of those terms. The fact that the terms themselves do not contain a limitation clause makes no difference, because the Limitation Act says that if you are alleging a breach of contract you must do it within six years.

So, there is a limitation period, and it is six years.

However.

The limitation act also says that if you are bringing a claim based on the fraud of the other party the limitation period does not start to run until you had knowledge of the fraud. So the six year period begins not with the date of the breaches, but the date those breaches became known to the PL - IF they were breaches brought about by fraud.

This means that the allegation of fraud is relevant in two ways. First, given that our accounts have been passed by an auditor, the PL have to allege fraud in order to make their case stick. Secondly, if they can't establish fraud, the limitation act means anything before February 2017 is time-barred.

They have charged us with something extremely serious. The consequences for City if the case succeeds are potentially devastating. The consequences for the PL if the charges fail is also potentially devastating.

 

[oakiecokie]

I’m more a Perry Mason guy, myself. As for Stella, his loyal secretary…wow.

Only us FOCs would understand that post mate. ;)