PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[cheekybids]

He did say he would support City too "if and when the time comes" tbf.

Fuck me…..if you get fucked over I’ll send a supporting tweet but not before.

Smashing ….

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

He did say he would support City too "if and when the time comes" tbf.

That’s fair enough, but I still question, given his where political duties lie, whether he should have publicly commented on Everton, even in a personal capacity.

And by the time ‘if and when the time comes’ is often too little, too late in my experience.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

He’s not prejudicing anything as he’s only the Mayor of Manchester. However, he’s trying to influence & I find it startling that everyone calls out City when complaining about Everton unless they are questioning the unjust process. You’d think as a politician he’d think fuck me I should maybe consider my own voters.

If I had my way, nobody would comment on any of the ongoing cases as none of us have anything like the information to make a definitive judgement.

But we live in times of social media, where people make snap judgments based on their own bias, mostly, so it is what it is.

I’d happily agree with Burnham if he spoke out in our corner, but won’t lose much sleep if he keeps his counsel.

If he came out and added to the anti-City narrative, then I’d be fully with you guys in asking for his resignation.

 

[paulchapo]

The club should now say no more questions on our case will be answered until it's conclusion. We have nothing else to add and other clubs cases is their problem not ours.

 

[Chi-town blues]

I still dont understand why the 'lower' clubs in the pl voted for FFP. They were voting to stop themselves from ever being top dog. It's bizarre that they voted that way. They signed themselves to just being mid table with no ambition to improve.

All hail the power of media .

 

[kaz7]

Just received from fellow blue anyone else listen to it ?
Listening to Cheesamans last night ,Forever Blue, he had a guest Mike McClean,
He said he has inside knowledge than City's barristers have a recording whereby the Premier league board members quoted " We cannot have Man City winning the league for a forth time on the trot"
He quotes the Premier League board are totally corrupt !!

Sorry but i call bollocks

 

[meltonblue]

If I remember correctly the PL's rules - now known as Profitability and Sustainability Regulations - were proposed by Manchester United and only accepted because already relegated Reading chose to abstain. The rules do not see debt as a threat to sustainability but instead see owner investment as the major threat. It was not difficult to see why a particular club proposed them and others supported them, one of which, I believe, was Everton! It is not open to doubt that Everton has broken the regulations they voted for because they spent more than they had coming in from "legitimate" revenue streams! They cannot, therefore, complain when some sanctions are imposed. The PL, though, have behaved with their customary incompetent bias. There are obvious doubts about the independence of a commission of inquiry that includes the lawyer of a club which may sue Everton for damages after their own relegation and the finance director of another PL rival, involved in a relegation battle last season and possibly this. The sanctions imposed were also worryingly close to those demanded by the PL and the statement issued to justify these sanctions - that their wealthy owners could simply pay any fine - appears to show that sustainability was not part of the reasoning which led to the introduction of these rules. As we can see, the real justification was to limit spending to those revenue streams dominated by certain clubs, of which Manchester United were at that time the most obvious. Everton are paying a ridiculously high price to allow the Glazers et al to sleep at night.

City's case is different. It is obvious that we have not "overspent" but have always operated within the rules. We must simply show that our accounts are a true and full picture and that there has been no enormous, eleven year long conspiracy. CAS were convinced by the club's evidence and City were exonerated, not because there was just not enough evidence, but because there was NO evidence. The question of recordings of PL officials not wishing City to win another title are irrelevant to the charges and will only be relevant to any change in PL governance if it can be shown that improper means to prevent our winning the title again are/were used.

I’ve seen this a few times, just to be clear on CAS, it wasn’t because there was no evidence as such, as the emails were evidence. They judged that Uefa hadn’t satisfied the burden of proof as there was no evidence that any of the arrangements discussed in the emails were actually fulfilled.

I’ve always assumed the PL must have something else though and are going after the related party issue more, which wasn’t part of the CAS judgment. If they’re still only reliant on emails though, I don’t get how they can reach a different conclusion to what CAS did though.

 

[jim tolmies perm]

Fuck me…..if you get fucked over I’ll send a supporting tweet but not before.

Smashing ….

An attempt at a bit of FFS style backtracking

 

[meltonblue]

Maybe you’re right, but it doesn’t change the point I was advancing, namely he shouldn’t have commented on Everton, even in a personal capacity, given where his political duties lie, and the charges against City.

Yes, I’d agree with that.

 

[Scoobz3]

I believe there’s no lawful reason he can’t, as long as he doesn’t descend into defamation. It’s a civil action, not a criminal trial. They aren’t even any ongoing court proceedings. Moreover, commenting on the benefit the club brings to his electoral area is extraneous to the charges. No reason he couldn’t make that point in a way that didn’t expressly reference the charges, but impliedly did.

However, my point was more aimed at the fact he publicly commented on Everton (in a private capacity). Given he hasn’t commented on City, then commenting on Everton at all is questionable, given where his particular duties as an elected politician lie, and what interests he has been elected to advance.

It would be akin to the MP for a constituency with a car factory in it writing to the Secretary of State expressing about the closure of a car factory in another constituency because he drove that car.

Like I said, poor judgement at the very least.

Disagree anything that increases scrutiny of the Premier league is welcome ... also makes it clear given his official role that he is likely to intervene again in the City case if it isn't handeled right. It's a marker