PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

coolcity said:
If we're being charged based on rules that didn't exist at the time of the alleged offence, that's nothing less than astonishing. Can you point me in the direction of any further information on this please?
Click to expand...

There’s very little detail on the specific substance of this in any of the reports out there, but it is clearly referenced in most of the articles on our objection to Rosen.

It’s not that the rules didn’t exist. Apparently the PL recently changed some of their rules, and it seems they’ve relied on the new interpretations in relation to the charges against City, when clearly the apparent infringements all occurred before 2018 - and before the rules changed.

Without any of the detail, it’s difficult to make a call on the strength of this argument - and the extent to which these rule changes alter the case against is. But if it’s as clear cut as we appear to be claiming, then clearly this is a complete mess - and yet another damaging error on the part of the PL, which further undermines the strength of their case against us.
 
I go along with the idea that if the FA needed to change the rules to win the case against us! They can't have been too confident in the strength of their case based on the original rules.
 
Pablo ZZZ Peroni said:
1. The dropped line in the Times article that we are appealing because Rosen is an Arsenal fan will be bollocks. It is a deliberate clickbait ruse. Last time round the the court kicked-out in no uncertain times our questioning of potential bias.

2. The rule change is to do with disclosure ie the PL have introdcued wider rules about what we are supposed to disclose in response to their requests. City, rightly, say it should be on the original rules.

All IMO.
Click to expand...

Point 2 is interesting - thanks for clarifying.

So it seems what we’re suggesting is this is essentially an elaborate fishing expedition, where the PL are expecting us to hand over a level of financial detail from which they hope to be able to conclusively prove the charges.

And we’re saying no, based on the level of disclosure required at the time of the alleged infringements?

If so, this is probably part of our defence on the non-cooperation charges (which I think account for about 30 of the total) - which is good to hear, as this is the one I originally thought we’d be bang to rights on!
 
bluemoon32 said:
That's it, do i think we are completely innocent, no i don't but i'd wager many other clubs have been up to the same shenanigans but just won't be investigated.
Click to expand...
With Trafford united having their accounts in the Cayman Islands - I wonder how many demands for access to detail of their accounts have been made / responded to?
 
Vic said:
What exactly is this "legal challenge" and what's prompted it now? It was known in February that Rosen was an Arsenal fan but has he said something recently to indicate his partiality? But a "legal challenge" implies Court action but there's no indication of any submission to any court.
Click to expand...

Rosen is just a footnote in all the charges our counsel have been able to since pour through and pick holes in.
 
LEVY OUT, LEVY OUT, LEVY OUT

Just seen Spuds fans with flags wanting rid of Daniel. I don't know, football fans must be the most ungrateful people imaginable. When you think of all the time, all the money, all the energy Daniel has spent orchestrating a witch hunt against MCFC on behalf of those very fans. And this is how they repay him ! Maybe, if he had spent a tad more time focusing on own his club they would be in a position to compete with the likes of the little old CITEH...
 
Bluemoonadam said:
I'm just stating our lawyer is an arsenal fan nothing stupid about it because its true.
Click to expand...
Except that’s not all you stated. You’re either stupid or looking for an argument.

Here, in words you might understand: One is being paid by us to represent our interests. Hence partial, but not supposed to be partial, so no problem.

The other is supposed to be impartial.
 
Last edited:
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.