PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

cheekybids said:
Sounds like this will be reported as the club looking for another loophole ;-)
Click to expand...

The bastards.

I am reminded of Khaldoon's comment that the club would rather pay 30 million in legal fees than pay another settlement. I am pretty sure the club has the evidence to have the alleged breaches dismissed but are punishing the PL with a mind-blowingly and expensively slow process, using all possible requests for clarification and appeals they can, whether they are won or not, just to make the point that the PL shouldn't have started with this nonsense.

Bad faith? Maybe, but serves the fuckers right.
 
cheekybids said:
Not 1 …….. tells you everything about the agenda.

I wonder why not even 1 journalist swims against the stream. That’s what pisses me off about journalists that make out they have our ear that not even 1 of them had given a semblance of balance by stating the emails that that the whole revelation & charges were based on were falsified.
Click to expand...
The only reason I can think of is that all the media need this for clicks.
From their point of view why would they start killing their golden goose?

Other than that maybe individual journalists may have had its mention edited out by those who control what is published.
 
halfcenturyup said:
The bastards.

I am reminded of Khaldoon's comment that the club would rather pay 30 million in legal fees than pay another settlement. I am pretty sure the club has the evidence to have the alleged breaches dismissed but are punishing the PL with a mind-blowingly and expensively slow process, using all possible requests for clarification and appeals they can, whether they are won or not, just to make the point that the PL shouldn't have started with this nonsense.

Bad faith? Maybe, but serves the fuckers right.
Click to expand...
Sounds OK to me.

We fight pedantic 115 fire with extruded pedantic fire.
In the meantime we shrug off perpetual media bias and get on with winning trophies. At the same time we watch our enemies spend to compete but dangerously close to breaking not only FFP but also Mr Macawbers advice.
 
SilverFox2 said:
The only reason I can think of is that all the media need this for clicks.
From their point of view why would they start killing their golden goose?

Other than that maybe individual journalists may have had its mention edited out by those who control what is published.
Click to expand...

I’m not having this. All it takes is 1 rogue journalist to say “Der Spiegel emails used to charge City were falsified!”

This would be massive & even the Israel & Palestine conflict gets 2 narratives.
 
cheekybids said:
Not 1 …….. tells you everything about the agenda.

I wonder why not even 1 journalist swims against the stream. That’s what pisses me off about journalists that make out they have our ear that not even 1 of them had given a semblance of balance by stating the emails that that the whole revelation & charges were based on were falsified.
Click to expand...
They weren't 'falsified' though were they? Two were combined to make it sound worse than it was but I don't think the wording was altered?

Regardless, it's all political bollocks and I'm still not even faintly stressed.
 
halfcenturyup said:
You guys are obsessed with bank statements. The PL rules now say this, as guidance to rules W15 and W16:

"The obligation above means that those bound by the Rules must not only answer questions, provide information and provide documents when requested to do so, but also that, for example (and without limitation), they must not delay at all in doing so, they must do so comprehensively, and they must do soon a co-operative and open basis, which includes volunteering relevant information and documents unknown to the Board, obtaining such information and documents from other parties when able to do so, and ensuring that the appropriate individuals are made available for questioning by the Board."

Now read what I said again in relation to that guidance.
Click to expand...
Ahhhh, the un-obtainim clause. It’s not realistic. Imagine them asking City to get Mancini in for questioning, he isn’t employed by City any longer so he can tell them to go swivel. Well in that case City are guilty of non compliance.
 
Centurions said:
No they weren't "falsified". "the CAS panel found that the emails presented in the media in 2018 were often shorn of context, but did accept their veracity, not least because City provided the emails themselves."

Click to expand...

The Der Spiegel article did not provide a “true” representation therefore it provided a “false” view & it was deliberate. We’ve been called Cheats when we haven’t been found to have cheated so as I go back to my original point I don’t see any reason why a headline can’t include falsified emails & then explain they were out of context.

My main point is not 1 contrary view point & I can’t think of any other subject where you can’t find differing narratives.
 
halfcenturyup said:
You guys are obsessed with bank statements. The PL rules now say this, as guidance to rules W15 and W16:

"The obligation above means that those bound by the Rules must not only answer questions, provide information and provide documents when requested to do so, but also that, for example (and without limitation), they must not delay at all in doing so, they must do so comprehensively, and they must do soon a co-operative and open basis, which includes volunteering relevant information and documents unknown to the Board, obtaining such information and documents from other parties when able to do so, and ensuring that the appropriate individuals are made available for questioning by the Board."

Now read what I said again in relation to that guidance.
Click to expand...
Seems to me that the Premier League depending on there mood could make very unreasonable demands should they choose to do for example demand that we have the head of Nissan give evidence in person and provide bank statement and then choose to or not to for example with regards to United and there noodle partner the whole thing stinks. We cannot make unrelated third party sponsors give evidence etc we are not court police force etc they have no reason to do so other than to help someone they sponsors out and any tangential positive for their marketing.
 
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
✖
  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.