PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Phoenix900000]

They are taking a break from being experts on the history of Israel and Hamas, vaccines, asylum laws and the Ukranian war to share their expertise with you all. Be grateful for their knowledge

Drives me mad all that

 

[KS55]

Cunts in the media falling over themselves to conflate Everton and City are like someone comparing a driver who got flashed doing 35 in a 30, who pleaded guilty to the offence, and got a harsher sentence than expected with another driver accused of doing 70 in a 30 who not only denies the offence but has asked the prosecution to provide evidence of the alleged offence but none has been forthcoming.

There is literally no evidence in the public domain in relation to these 115 charges - and my very strong suspicion is that none whatsoever exists. Certainly none of the cunts conflating the two situations will have had sight of anything meaningful or we’d be fucking sure to know about it.

So yes, City will be punished more severely if the case against us is proven, but presently there appears to be no case to answer, because if there was it surely would have been determined some considerable time ago.

Any talk of City delaying proceedings (which was the prevailing narrative in the media yesterday) is a complete red herring, as is the notion that City need time to prepare to defend these 115 charges. I expect the legal professionals we have engaged could do so in under a week, if required.

If the PL had the evidence to support these charges then we would now unquestionably be at a wholly different stage of proceedings.

Time will tell of course, but I fully expect that the delay is simply because the PL have nothing of substance to back up these charges.

The alternative, namely that the club has committed grand-scale fraud over a sustained period, is not only absurd, but lacking any discernible supporting evidence.

This part of the equation is always conspicuously missed by these cunts in the media.

Funny that.

Go right back to the beginning of this saga. The ping pong cheat wrote two articles declaring City were guilty and we, the supporters,
were rats. At that time, he had seen absolutely zero evidence, relying solely on doctored emails in Der Speigel. The standard was set.

 

[StillBluessinceHydeRoad]

Oh yeah. Just seems to have popped up again and gone into overdrive since our deduction. It's slowly turning into the City and Chelsea show when the focus needs to stay on us.

Best we could do between the 3 clubs is get the lawyers together and go after the PL. I'd honestly love for us to air everyone elses dirty laundry too, expose the corruption of other clubs and the league.

I think Everton are being shafted, I believe City to be innocent of all charges but I'm perplexed by Chelsea.

It is very odd that Everton have failed profit and sustainability tests yet they have an owner so rich that a fine would be inappropriate! Hard to see how they can have spent too much. My view on City speaks for itself. But Chelsea? RA spent heavily when he had bought the club and made loss after loss. I see nothing wrong in that. But when Sheikh Mansour bought City RA announced his conversion to FFP which he suddenly considered essential to football's future! Chelsea then announced a series of profits in their annual accounts and many Chelsea fans saw City as a disgraceful threat and it was, indeed, City's money which was somehow ruining football. Hardly a whimper of support for City. Yet the PL case is that RA was breaking every financial control putin place, which he claimed to support. And he concealed these activities. If the claims are true he is guilty of fraud. The second question raisedconcerns Chelsea's new owners. They have spent lavishly since they bought the club. I see nothing wrong with this but the PL may. And yet it is RA who is suspected of serious wrong doing. Were there not serious short comings in the checks made before purchase if it was RA who was the offender?

 

[SamBlue]

Today's The Guardian Sport Section has a very details description how the whole process and the panel are working, both on Everton's case and in general. What really troubles me is the 'balance of probability' clause as the cut-off point for the panel to make a decision.

 

[KS55]

Which begs the question, why did the PL hand out these charges so willy nilly.
Surely they didn't think we'd just say "ok guv, it's a fair cop".
The PL's stance on all this makes no sense to me

Makes no sense unless you have been threatened/blackmailed/pressured by the redshirts.

 

[The Stockport Iniesta]

It always helps to break things down to the lowest common denominator.

I asked my Cousin's what City have apparently done, & exactly what we're being charged with?

This is the answer from one.乁⁠(⁠ ⁠•⁠_⁠•⁠ ⁠)⁠ㄏ

View attachment 99062

If I had a relative that thick, I wouldn't be advertising it.

 

[Jam Tomorrow]

Not aware of this JT. Do tell…..

It’s all here in this link, surprised it’s not been thrown down the memory hole tbh

Football: Spurs are 'staggered' by punishment: Tottenham escape

ALAN SUGAR, the Tottenham Hotspur chairman, last night felt like the man who has avoided the death penalty only to be given life imprisonment. The Football Association's punishment for Spurs' financial irregularities included the deduction of 12 points from next season's Premiership campaign...

www.independent.co.uk

 

[Roger Mellie]

What really troubles me is the 'balance of probability' clause as the cut-off point for the panel to make a decision.

I have no faith in the PL after what happened to John Terry.

Found not guilty in a court of law but was banned by the PL

 

[Damanino]

there is no way Chelsea can get off lighter than Everton after all this.

not sure how long it will take tho for the Chelsea case so far they have not even been charged. given some of these are self admitted the whole case should not take that long.

 

[KS55]

Today's The Guardian Sport Section has a very details description how the whole process and the panel are working, both on Everton's case and in general. What really troubles me is the 'balance of probability' clause as the cut-off point for the panel to make a decision.

We have ten or more years of audited accounts plus other evidence such as a sworn statement under oath by the CEO of Etisalat. Even on the balance of probabilities, that requires the PL to have some pretty powerful evidence of false accounting. They haven’t got it.