PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Eevry time I hear this phrase "go nuclear" I am reminded of a meeting I went to with my partner about 20 years ago. We were in a serious legal dispute with some guys who were trying to take control of the shares of our company. We were in this meeting with a solicitor at Eversheds, a serious big hitter, and were talking about something like if they decided to withdraw cash without our consent or similar.

Anyway my partner confidently stated "If they do that we'll throw the book at them" and this solictor just casually but pointedly asked "What book?". She had no response.

I think this "go nuclear" phrase is the same: baseless bluster. There is no "nuclear".

There’s lots of hyperbole flying round which I agree doesn’t really reflect what happens during litigation in the real world.

However, some of the hyperbole has a root of truth in it. Obviously “going nuclear” isn’t a legal mechanism, but there absolutely are different tactics at client/legal rep disposal depending on the situation.

It will always be a balanced, considered approach based on facts / intended results, but if City got to the point where being ultra aggressive is the best course of action then they would absolutely do that.

But from my experience, aggressive approaches during initial litigation/dialogue don’t serve you too well when you actually get to the hearing.
 
Eevry time I hear this phrase "go nuclear" I am reminded of a meeting I went to with my partner about 20 years ago. We were in a serious legal dispute with some guys who were trying to take control of the shares of our company. We were in this meeting with a solicitor at Eversheds, a serious big hitter, and were talking about something like if they decided to withdraw cash without our consent or similar.

Anyway my partner confidently stated "If they do that we'll throw the book at them" and this solictor just casually but pointedly asked "What book?". She had no response.

I think this "go nuclear" phrase is the same: baseless bluster. There is no "nuclear".
"go nuclear" is usually a sign of someone messing up badly and trying to cover their tracks.

The pathetic incompetence to even correctly list the charges from the PL says a lot about their case.
 
Do you think if they had something concrete on us? The book would not have been thrown at us by now.
Also, Manchester City could be about to complete the 5 main trophies in one year that nobody else has ever done before in England,

If the Manchester City ship was about to go down big time, You think the Rats would have jumped ship by now
 
Not picking on you but the idea that, if we breached the PL rules, then we "deserve" some form of punishment is one that I have seen fairly often on this thread and it rankles somewhat.

The whole princiiple and application of FFP is fraudulent, anti-competitive, introduced in bad faith and imposed on us without our agreement, so, from my perspective, nothing we could do to circumvent those rules would be "deserving" of punishment. If the charges are "proven", it simply means that a cartel of clubs have succeeded in stitching us up, not that we have done a single thing wrong. To the contrary, I would commend our board for the lengths they have gone to in order to compete and giving me the best 10 years of football I have ever witnessed.
All we are.guilty of is spending money to.compete , with the best owners the football world has ever seen
 
I'd like to believe Lineker and Shearer have accidentally overlooked the past history of the guest, which is easily done considering United and Liverpool fans lap up everything he says because he says what they want him to say.

Listeners would have benefitted a lot more from having @projectriver on, somebody who understands finance and law.

A judge has already dismissed Harris as an expert of those matters, so it makes so sense calling him the expert on the podcast.
When was this that Harris was dismissed by a judge? I didn't know that, although we all know that he is no financial expert. He's a lot of things but he knows next to nothing about City's case.
 
Just a couple of points:
Breaking FFP rules does not necessarily constitute fraudulent accounting.
If they took a negative view on Etisalat and Image rights I believe this could exceed Everton's £20M breach for which they received a ten point deduction.
Forget about it...
 
When was this that Harris was dismissed by a judge? I didn't know that, although we all know that he is no financial expert. He's a lot of things but he knows next to nothing about City's case.

I mentioned CAS earlier but of course it was the Barry Bennell case.

Harris put himself forward as a ‘Football Finance Expert’ when providing evidence but the Judge ruled that he absolutely wasn't an "expert".

Someone please correct me if that's wrong.
 
Well, it's certainly been a tidal wave of excitement across the various media channels in the past week, some pundits and former players of the 'Red Cartel' are like kids on Christmas Eve. The excitement has reached fever pitch on the basis that Everton have been docked 10 points.
FTFY:
More like a tidal wave of Excrement !
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bez

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.