PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

projectriver said:
Hard to understand your point(s). You are fixated on irrelevant semantics and the absence of public statements. As I said earlier, read the FAQ.
Click to expand...
You've not considered a word I've said. I've stepped away from the semantics long ago, so I could gain a better global overview.

I find it increasingly difficult to get past why the authorities haven't drawn down on City, & also the non-legal language the PL have carefully used when referencing City & these alleged breaches.

You've not proven your Premier League "charges" claim, nor have you considered City’s situation outside your personal opinion, which is your right.

On a positive note, there are two very distinct ways & approaches of viewing these breaches & hearings. Hopefully City fans have greater clarity through our discussions to consider both opposing views so they can draw their own conclusions.

I've already digested the FAQ's, but I'll give you an analogy off the top of my head to consider...

There's an argument whether Santa Claus's original costume was red or green. Both parties bring their evidence & spiritedly argue their views & opinions.

However, the point both are missing is Santa is a fictional character, so both points are moot in the big scheme of things anyway. That's me stepping away from the semantics, & leaving others to argue red or green.

Also consider why City are in favour of a statutory Independent Regulator for English Football (IREF), & the PL are bitterly opposed?

If we had something to hide from the statutory bodies (HMRC, SFO, Police) & the UK Criminal/Civil Law Courts, our stated position that we favour a statutory IREF body, belies any liability with the industrial scale fraud we're essentially being accused of.

Where I'm sure we can both agree, is a wish for a favourable outcome for City, & an end to the witchunts against us. )(
 
giphy.gif
 
Stoned Rose said:
If we’ve provided irrefutable evidence how can we have not co-operated?
Click to expand...
I think the sticking point maybe the PL (& UEFA before them) wanting access to ADUG, Etisalat & Etihad's internal accounts & bank statements to prove our liability.

All three are outside Europe's jurisdiction, so I'd suppose they may have asked City to provide the material, City told them to get it themselves, & UEFA/PL have been summarily fucked off by the other parties concerned.

This is why the PL & UEFA only have the hacked emails to go on, & can only complete their evidence with suppositions.

Accusing us is one thing. Providing concrete irrefutable evidence is another thing altogether, hence why no one outside of the football ruling bodies seems in the slightest bit arsed.
 
Last edited:
projectriver said:
Hard to understand your point(s). You are fixated on irrelevant semantics and the absence of public statements. As I said earlier, read the FAQ.
Click to expand...
Got to be honest, the sight of you patiently batting off some internet bloviator whose legal vocabulary includes "Red Top Mafia" and "Spuds" had made me smile today.
 
bluenova said:
Underneath his analysis on twitter someone asks if it's the smaller clubs/PL trying to reign in the big six.

He actually says this is only going to affect "one or two of the big six", and says that it's being driven by "one of the big six". Given who voted, it's either Liverpool, Arsenal, or Spurs. Which isn't much of a surprise.
Click to expand...
Seeing as it’s us and the rags with stand out bigger turnover and revenue , my money is on the jumped up shits that spurs are , such an over inflated image of themselves , the biggest fucking myth in English football.
 
Dribble said:
You've not considered a word I've said. I've stepped away from the semantics long ago, so I could gain a better global overview.

I find it increasingly difficult to get past why the authorities haven't drawn down on City, & also the non-legal language the PL have carefully used when referencing City & these alleged breaches.

You've not proven your Premier League "charges" claim, nor have you considered City’s situation outside your personal opinion, which is your right.

On a positive note, there are two very distinct ways & approaches of viewing these breaches & hearings. Hopefully City fans have greater clarity through our discussions to consider both opposing views so they can draw their own conclusions.

I've already digested the FAQ's, but I'll give you an analogy off the top of my head to consider...

There's an argument whether Santa Claus's original costume was red or green. Both parties bring their evidence & spiritedly argue their views & opinions.

However, the point both are missing is Santa is a fictional character, so both points are moot in the big scheme of things anyway. That's me stepping away from the semantics, & leaving others to argue red or green.

Also consider why City are in favour of a statutory Independent Regulator for English Football (IREF), & the PL are bitterly opposed?

If we had something to hide from the statutory bodies (HMRC, SFO, Police) & the UK Criminal/Civil Law Courts, our stated position that we favour a statutory IREF body, belies any liability with the industrial scale fraud we're essentially being accused of.

Where I'm sure we can both agree, is a wish for a favourable outcome for City, & an end to the witchunts against us. )(
Click to expand...
Santa is a blue and therefore dresses as such. Thought we all knew that ;)
 
Dribble said:
You've not considered a word I've said. I've stepped away from the semantics long ago, so I could gain a better global overview.

I find it increasingly difficult to get past why the authorities haven't drawn down on City, & also the non-legal language the PL have carefully used when referencing City & these alleged breaches.

You've not proven your Premier League "charges" claim, nor have you considered City’s situation outside your personal opinion, which is your right.

On a positive note, there are two very distinct ways & approaches of viewing these breaches & hearings. Hopefully City fans have greater clarity through our discussions to consider both opposing views so they can draw their own conclusions.

I've already digested the FAQ's, but I'll give you an analogy off the top of my head to consider...

There's an argument whether Santa Claus's original costume was red or green. Both parties bring their evidence & spiritedly argue their views & opinions.

However, the point both are missing is Santa is a fictional character, so both points are moot in the big scheme of things anyway. That's me stepping away from the semantics, & leaving others to argue red or green.

Also consider why City are in favour of a statutory Independent Regulator for English Football (IREF), & the PL are bitterly opposed?

If we had something to hide from the statutory bodies (HMRC, SFO, Police) & the UK Criminal/Civil Law Courts, our stated position that we favour a statutory IREF body, belies any liability with the industrial scale fraud we're essentially being accused of.
1000019371.jpg
Where I'm sure we can both agree, is a wish for a favourable outcome for City, & an end to the witchunts against us. )(
Click to expand...
You bar steward, santa is real. How can I believe anything you write now.



;-)
 
Keeper! said:
He has had the letter from Lord Pannick, the guy is in full reverse and backtracking, he has praised our turnover today and said it 's an example of a successful club!

Amazing what a piece of A4 and a first class stamp can do.
Click to expand...
The bloke's a fucking bellend but I have wondered in the past if we should've invited him up for the day and given him a tour of all the facilities, etc, in order to show how well run the club is and how everything is being done for the long-term rather than the short-term. If he got a proper insight into the way the club is run then he actually might start to appreciate that we're not some flash in the pan. I'm not interested in buying the fucker off - just educate him instead.

Wenger used to slag us off to fuck but it's the opposite these days!
 
blue61 said:
It will take them years to reach the revenue to be affected
Click to expand...
Thing is mate , things do change in football very very quickly , Pep will be one massive void to fill , it will make Klopp leaving Liverpool look like Alan Ball screeching “I’ve got a World Cup winners medal me” when he was appointed as City’s manager , the point I’m making is our revenue could easily dip by £100m just by not qualifying for CL football when Pep eventually leaves, we have been blessed by continuous revenue through going deep into the CL year after year , someone will eventually take our place - that’s football , but our revenue will always be enough for us to compete, the stadium expansion, and 365 hotel that will service the new CO-OP arena is the foresight our owners can see, if and when the inevitable happens when Pep does leave. Our owners are on the ball for any eventuality
 
bluenova said:
Underneath his analysis on twitter someone asks if it's the smaller clubs/PL trying to reign in the big six.

He actually says this is only going to affect "one or two of the big six", and says that it's being driven by "one of the big six". Given who voted, it's either Liverpool, Arsenal, or Spurs. Which isn't much of a surprise.
Click to expand...
+1 is my bet
 
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