halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 11,033
Nick and Rob's brother?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules
- Thread starter ayrshire_blue
- Start date
Nick and Rob's brother?
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
Don’t expect so!Nick and Rob's brother?
He will be insanely intelligent. On another planet.
Allnightlong
Well-Known Member
was this to keep the case private? which i thought everyone wantedNo worries, from Blackstone’s website - Adam Lewis who is representing the PL has been on this since at least 2020. As below, the club challenged the process and failed at arbitration, then took it to commercial court, lost and were forced to provide documents to the PL. This process was what City fought to have embargoed but the Daily Mail won the right to publish.
View attachment 100349
Just been walking through the snow in Kendal wearing my City hat and a voice says to me 'which league are you going to be relegated to?'. I looked up at the person. I think he was vaguely human and I said 'we won't be relegated!'. I said it more defiantly than I was expecting and noticed he had an Arsenal hat on. I then said 'You'd like us to be relegated, but we won't!'. Off he trudged in the slush. I hope I'm right because if I see him again I will let him know he was wrong...repeatedly LOL.
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 11,033
was this to keep the case private? which i thought everyone wanted
Also about which information they could ask for, I think..
Thanks @lassel. If I understand - the 4 PL wins were all related to the one issue - privacy? Is that right?No worries, from Blackstone’s website - Adam Lewis who is representing the PL has been on this since at least 2020. As below, the club challenged the process and failed at arbitration, then took it to commercial court, lost and were forced to provide documents to the PL. This process was what City fought to have embargoed but the Daily Mail won the right to publish.
View attachment 100349
Lord Blue
Well-Known Member
perfect panto season responseOh no they're not!
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
For one thing it's the PL, not the FA.I guess the Fa don’t think they will the case on 115 points but will have some joy which may result in 30 odd charges sticking.
Bear in mind some of the charges we are guilty of is breaching uefa FFP which we accepted, paid the fine and reduced squad. Non compliance may well be another so it’s easy to see 30 odd charges sticking which proves we are guilty in the eyes of the red tops even tho it’s not the serious offences everyone thinks
For another thing, I've made the point on here and on Twitter many times that it's not 115 discrete charges. If you were a prolific burglar and were charged with robbing 115 different houses, that's 115 separate charges. But our situation is more like a burglar having robbed 15 houses and being charged separately for each room in a house they'd burgled. And if they were there at midnight, being charged separately for each day.
It's basically three substantive issues (sponsorship contracts, Mancini's contract and player image rights) covering multiple PL rules over multiple years. So the Mancini one involves something like 5 rules over 4 years, meaning 20 'charges' in all.
I very much doubt that they will find we breached Rule W.1 but not Rule W.2 or W.3, or were in breach in 2010/11 but not in 2011/12. The alleged breaches will stand or fall as a group. Your scenario could be correct however if we were found to have breached one of the issues, say image rights, which might involve 30 breaches of various rules over multiple years.
Last edited:
We only know what has filtered out - seemingly the club argued that the PL were biased and as such not the right party to handle any case. The arbitrators and Commercial Court disagreed and ordered City to complyThanks @lassel. If I understand - the 4 PL wins were all related to the one issue - privacy? Is that right?
Although we lost - not an important issue in the grand scheme of things - but good to see that the club were keen to take it all the way. An important sign for what’s comingWe only know what has filtered out - seemingly the club argued that the PL were biased and as such not the right party to handle any case. The arbitrators and Commercial Court disagreed and ordered City to comply