PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[kaz7]

If he was looking for attention he'd be throwing orange powder.

There is that lol

 

[BringBackSwales]

"Some bloke on twitter " That statement was on here a couple of weeks ago. Think it was tolmies hairdo.

You think we’ve already responded and provided proof against most of the charges? I can’t remember exactly what the bloke on Twitter said but it was along the lines that most of the charges (all except one?) had already been sorted. Not a chance if that yet, in my opinion. When I hear it from Khaldoon in a year or two I’ll believe it, not when I read it from some bloke on Twitter, which was probably based on what he read in here, in my opinion.

 

[Stoned Rose]

If we take twatter with a huge grain of salt..

View attachment 75475

Source:

“I’m hearing” is a mad way of spelling “I read it on Bluemoon”, the sad ****.

 

[BringBackSwales]

Yep, I posted a while back in here that the charges are essentially the same to cover the rolling years of the supposed offences, and 95 per cent can already be dismissed.

The other five per cent is our only focus, but I don't know about this latest claim that it now boils down to one.

Sounds like a Chinese whisper being embellished around?

In the words of Basil Fawlty “you started it”!

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

Exactly. I took the opportunity yesterday to have a quick look through the Der Spiegel emails again, and, even given that we won at CAS, I'd forgotten how completely damning some of them appear. Unless City's evidence is utterly irrefutable - and we're certainly giving off confident vibes in that regard - then I'd be amazed if the PL were to roll over on the charges front, without a fight, particularly given that the tribunal is able to operate on a balance of probabilities ticket rather than demanding clear cut proof, and they would be crucified by the press if they chucked in the towel at the first sign of resistance

It's still a very high burden of proof, however.

We shouldn't get too Reds under the bed, with regards the balance of probabilities.

That still requires the tribunal to assert that City's owner, executive board and multitude of sponsors are all complicit and lying.

No Court, certainly not this one, will go down that path without concrete evidence.

 

[bluenova]

Yep, I posted a while back in here that the charges are essentially the same to cover the rolling years of the supposed offences, and 95 per cent can already be dismissed.

The other five per cent is our only focus, but I don't know about this latest claim that it now boils down to one.

Sounds like a Chinese whisper being embellished around?

Was your take that 95% can be dismissed because they're just duplicates?

So that 5% left can still be the five or so different main charges?

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

Was your take that 95% can be dismissed because they're just duplicates?

So that 5% left can still be the five or so different main charges?

95 per cent of the charges are replicated and can be considered off the table.

The other five per cent/five charges/ are the main focus of our legal counsel.

 

[laserblue]

It's still a very high burden of proof, however.

We shouldn't get too Reds under the bed, with regards the balance of probabilities.

That still requires the tribunal to assert that City's owner, executive board and multitude of sponsors are all complicit and lying.

No Court, certainly not this one, will go down that path without concrete evidence.

The charges also imply that City's auditors have committed extensive and ongoing fraud.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

The charges also imply that City's auditors have committed extensive and ongoing fraud.

Lots of implication, lots of entities being accused.

Don't want to die on the auditors hill, though.

It's almost an industry in itself these days, major auditors being fined for not doing their jobs properly.

The only thing which matters is can the tribunal prove we disguised owner investment through sponsors?

I fail to see how they can, barring a sponsor or Sheikh Mansour telling them they did!!

 

[blue b4 the moon]

Lots of implication, lots of entities being accused.

Don't want to die on the auditors hill, though.

It's almost an industry in itself these days, major auditors being fined for not doing their jobs properly.

The only thing which matters is can the tribunal prove we disguised owner investment through sponsors?

I fail to see how they can, barring a sponsor or Sheikh Mansour telling them they did!!

Just had a thought...imagine you own a multi-million pound company and the Prem decide you're the bad guys.

The law suit from said company for defamation could destroy the Prem....maybe that's the end game to allow a Super League to rise from the ashes?