PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

feedmpenzaandhewillscore said:
There hasn’t been the same clamour to get the official who reffed the Derby stood down than there has been for the VAR team who did the Arsenal game on Saturday. In my view the derby decision was a whole lot worse to something marginal.
Click to expand...
The Fernandes goal decison was the worst I have ever seen. The linesman and the VAR made the correct call and the referee (Atwell) overuled them without checking the monitor. Virtually unprecedented even with the current shambles that is VAR. It was obvious somethig fishy had happened from the body language of officials on the pitch. The cagey response by Howard Webb the next day confirmed my suspicions. He used weasel words (with no apology) but pretty much confirmed the wrong decison had been made. Clearly the linesman and VAR team were hung out to dry by Stuart Atwell so presumably there has been some fall-out over that.
 
Last edited:
Semper aggressus said:
And the Brentford equaliser against Arse. Surely if var was there to stop us winning the league they’d have found a way to disallow that?

I just think refs and var are shit and incompetent, and nothing to do with the vendetta against us which is purely from the ‘hateful 8 or 9‘ clubs whose boards are jealous of our spending and winning stuff so focussed on our spending.
Click to expand...
It isn’t about necessarily stopping us (although I’m sure they won’t want us to win 5 in 6) it’s about keeping things interesting, a storyline, new heroes born, a manipulation of an ending that ultimately means more gravy for everyone
 
Chris in London said:
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.
Click to expand...
It is a bit behind but it is a good summary and thanks.
Stefan confirmed (p1458) that time limitations do apply.
I agree with the point you made that if fraud cannot be established then anything prior to Feb 2017 is time barred.
On the assumption that violating FFP regulations does not constitute a breach of the law this would therefore mean that any FFP allegations against us are time barred prior to Feb 2017?
 
BlueMojito said:
OMG! I've read every single message in this thread to try and get a better understanding of the charges we are facing. My emotions have been up and down as I've tried to comprehend what is being discussed and the potential ramifications either way. Please let this message be real! My head and my heart say City are victims of jealous hatred. Something this explosive would just show the world we are innocent and treated unfairly. Take them to the cleaners!!!!
Click to expand...
take you to the cleaners.gif
 
Dodge said:
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.
Click to expand...
The broadcasters are privy to recordings between the ref and the VAR teams but they are apparently not allowed to share them with the paying customers! The broadcasters also supply the footage and the angles which is one of the most dishonest things about the whole process. Some incidents get looked at others get ignored. I trust what you have said. Let's wait and see what happens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.