PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

johnevans said:
Perhaps someone at Westminster could point out out to Luke Evans MP (btw, no relation.. I joined the Labour Party as a student in 1973 and remain to this day) that:

(a) charges laid are not evidence of actual events and actual behaviours, even when the volume of charges appears to be 'high'
(b) being charged with 'non-cooperation' by CAS and PL is a nonsense, given the right of any organisation in any field of operation to refuse access to its documents/records without specific charges being laid (to prevent 'fishing expeditions')
(c) of the latest iteration of English footballing power, the 'Big Six', only one of those clubs has voted in favour of the PL accepting the independent regulatory oversight Luke Evans is in favour of, namely Manchester City
(d) probably 99.9% of City supporters agree with the club's stance on point (c)

Yet another grandstanding, bandwagon-jumping Tory twunt who doesn't know what he's talking about..
Click to expand...

An ignorant Tory…. There’s a thing.
 
madloaf said:
Don't bother reading it. Here is a summary.

Click to expand...

The more I read that type of faecal smear masquerading as journalism the more confident I am that MCFC will prevail. There are only two questions. Did Etisalat Telecoms provide sponsorship funds to MCFC ? Did Etihad Airways provide sponsorship funds to MCFC ?. In both cases the answers is Yes. I believe this is the irrefutable evidence the club has stated it possesses. The 6 stolen emails presented at CAS did NOT provide ANY evidence to the contrary. The whole thing is just about reputational damage.
 
Last edited:
jockblue said:
I see Miggles has released one of his greatest hits rehash of his work on our CAS hearing, explaining why it was all wrong and that we will get a ban when the PL are finished with us. So tedious. Not going to link to it but it’s in the independent…
Click to expand...
I'd rather shit in my hands and clap than read anything that wanker Delooney has written.
Fair play to you for not posting the link.
 
Luca1894 said:
The more I read that type of faecal smear masquerading as journalism the more confident I am that MCFC will prevail. There are only two questions. Did Etisalat Telecoms provide sponsorship funds to MCFC ? Did Etihad Airways provide sponsorship funds to MCFC ?. In both cases the answers is Yes. I believe this is the irrefutable evidence the club has stated it possesses. The 6 stolen emails presented at CAS did NOT provide ANY evidence to the contrary. The whole thing is just about reputational damage.
Click to expand...

Etihad is clear I think, Etisalat is a little trickier although I would imagine the club has more proof that what they did was reasonable, than proof the PL has that it wasn't. Other sponsorships small. Mancini no serious problem, Fordham a common business practice with good reason. Would be my assessment.

Fine for non-cooperation and a few warning words about Etisalat would be my likely outcome. No chance of proving accounts weren't true and fair, maybe some minor regulation breaches we don't know about.
 
jockblue said:
I see Miggles has released one of his greatest hits rehash of his work on our CAS hearing, explaining why it was all wrong and that we will get a ban when the PL are finished with us. So tedious. Not going to link to it but it’s in the independent…
Click to expand...

Life's too short to devote time to reading something that I know before I start will be an uninformed heap of badly argued shit. Reading Delaney on the business/legal aspects of football is a more futile exercise than would be poring over a 10,000-word analysis by Richard Madeley of Immanuel Kant's critique of the ontological argument.
 
petrusha said:
Life's too short to devote time to reading something that I know before I start will be an uninformed heap of badly argued shit. Reading Delaney on the business/legal aspects of football is a more futile exercise than would be poring over a 10,000-word analysis by Richard Madeley of Immanuel Kant's critique of the ontological argument.
Click to expand...

Richard Madeley the renowned 19th century philosopher?
 
jockblue said:
I see Miggles has released one of his greatest hits rehash of his work on our CAS hearing, explaining why it was all wrong and that we will get a ban when the PL are finished with us. So tedious. Not going to link to it but it’s in the independent…
Click to expand...

crayons.gif
 
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.