PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Gareth Barry Conlon]

I would expect nothing less, it's a very frank no nonsense reply but I say again, if we are so innocent this would have stopped long ago.

We all know there has been a vendetta against the club and owner, my long term worry has always been why the club allowed that narrative to go on for so long.

The abuse the Nation of Abu Dhabi has received is appalling, why no fight back at any time?

You need to save this for when the independent panel concludes. The PL still has to prove its case.

 

[Gingers Dad]

If we have cooked the books, it must have serious consequences for HMR Customs and revenue along with our investors like Silverlake.

Begs the question why Silverlake bought into this shit show. Did they not carry out due diligence? Are they also culpable as part owners?

 

[lancs blue]

I wonder what effect this will have on the summers transfer plans?

What's Barry Conlon doing nowadays?

 

[Jack74]

Fuck me, this makes Juve looks like choir boys

Tbf I think they got charged with match fixing

 

[halfcenturyup]

Do we know who has been the head of the investigation? I thought it was the same guy.

That would be a small conflict of interest, surely.

 

[jaiguruKun]

The glee off fans in the office is unreal , cunts.
Liverpool, Utd, Arsenal, Spurs, Villa fans all loving it

And we'd be the same if it was any other club who were in this situation.

 

[lazerblue]

i don't think a points deduction would matter, we're doing a good job of that ourselves
I'll get me coat ;-)

 

[ShedDweller]

Some decent days out in the Championship, I'll dust off my massive banana....... ;^)

The Keegan promotion season was the best ever. I'll still be there.

 

[SJT]

Taken my mind off the loss - seething.
wheels off - if were getting shit, we batter them all and take them with us - we all know
clubs that spend more way more than us.

 

[domalino]

Not in the UK they haven't. Any evidence gained illegally is not permissible

I don't know what your legal background is, but I'm pretty sure you're wrong here.

In civil proceding all evidence is allowed in as long as it's relevant. The legal precedent comes from a case called XXX vs YYY [2004] where a nanny used illegally obtained video recording to prove her employer made sexual advances and fired her when she rejected them. It got appealed all the way and the precedent was set that as long as it's relevant to the case, the court will admit it and any penalties for how you got the evidence are dealt with separately.