PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Moss Side's Finest said:
Almost every headline at the moment regarding us is based on quotes by Keith Wyness. He obviously has an agenda, probably due to the fact Everton have been deservedly fucked over by the PL and now he feels we should be done also. He's a convenient soundbite source for the red shirt media to use as quoting his previous role title " ex PL Chairman" appears to give his quotes some authority.
Click to expand...
The same as that other ex-PL chairman the know nowt gobshite that is Simon Jordan.
 
moomba said:
Someone has got to be paying F365 for their daily Keith Fucking Wyness exclusive breaking news story that tells us fuck all.
Click to expand...
I've clocked that as well mate, they are fucking parasites. Who the fuck is this Keith Wyness anyway, obviously has his finger on the pulse, lol
 
mattcity5 said:
Totally agree.

If you're reading an article about the case, just ignore anything that's full of 'if', 'could' and 'might' as being the guessings of a know-nothing click chaser. Pointless crap.
Click to expand...
Agree. And if that doesn't work try putting a diaper on...
 
moomba said:
Someone has got to be paying F365 for their daily Keith Fucking Wyness exclusive breaking news story that tells us fuck all.
Click to expand...
It's just the click bait arm of Planet Sport now,if those stories get clicks they'll repeat them. Pity really when it started it was a decent site even when Sky owned them it was okay.
 
terraloon said:
As I posted months ago I am not going to post an opinion re the main charges until we hear the outcome from the IC. My take on many of the charges does accord with the majority view on here but there are some of the charges like the Mancini contract issue that will , if the email chain is indeed fact, will be down to the assessment of the panel members in terms on balance were payments from city and as a consequence I don’t think it’s even close to a foregone conclusion

In terms of your take about how City would behave I personally can’t see how they would have not carried on with the stadium project.If that project had been put on ice surely the whole of football save city would see that as a self sign of guilt

As for sponsors again the bulk of the football community outside City are of the opinion that there are direct links the narrative from many supporters is that the majority of Cities . That almost certainly isn’t the case indeed most clubs see the value offered through greater number of “ partners” as opposed to major sponsors exclusively . There is no way that City would be saying anything differently to new sponsors in term of their innocence.

As for Gundogan. Sorry he is only on a one year deal at City so the question of him playing in the Championship next season isn’t really an issue still a very good player at soon to be 34 he may indeed get another deal but at this time he is only a city player guaranteed till May 25.

As for Utd hiring Berrada that is an interesting one and there is an alternative narrative that particularly if it suited Utd and potentially the PL to have in effect access to someone that was close to the facts and should ultimately he, Berrada, be implicated then an exit from Utd would certainly follow.
Click to expand...
Of course - you might think that a City fan would say this, but.....


I find your post both confusing and confused.....

Confusing because....

Up front you say that you are not going to post an opinion on the main charges, and then the rest of your post........

Confused because,.......

Well most of it - but particularly your 2nd para - which is, IMO, utterly ill-thought through nonsense
 
Last edited:
terraloon said:
As I posted months ago I am not going to post an opinion re the main charges until we hear the outcome from the IC. My take on many of the charges does accord with the majority view on here but there are some of the charges like the Mancini contract issue that will , if the email chain is indeed fact, will be down to the assessment of the panel members in terms on balance were payments from city and as a consequence I don’t think it’s even close to a foregone conclusion

In terms of your take about how City would behave I personally can’t see how they would have not carried on with the stadium project.If that project had been put on ice surely the whole of football save city would see that as a self sign of guilt

As for sponsors again the bulk of the football community outside City are of the opinion that there are direct links the narrative from many supporters is that the majority of Cities . That almost certainly isn’t the case indeed most clubs see the value offered through greater number of “ partners” as opposed to major sponsors exclusively . There is no way that City would be saying anything differently to new sponsors in term of their innocence.

As for Gundogan. Sorry he is only on a one year deal at City so the question of him playing in the Championship next season isn’t really an issue still a very good player at soon to be 34 he may indeed get another deal but at this time he is only a city player guaranteed till May 25.

As for Utd hiring Berrada that is an interesting one and there is an alternative narrative that particularly if it suited Utd and potentially the PL to have in effect access to someone that was close to the facts and should ultimately he, Berrada, be implicated then an exit from Utd would certainly follow.
Click to expand...

“Not going to post an opinion” but go on to assume we are guilty. That’s some non-opinion. What do think if we are cleared of everything? How much will your club be paying us for the shite we’ve had to put up with? I would accept a nine figure sum off your club. You can afford it. You could sell another hotel, you bent bastards.
 
SatOnTheWall said:
“Not going to post an opinion” but go on to assume we are guilty. That’s some non-opinion. What do think if we are cleared of everything? How much will your club be paying us for the shite we’ve had to put up with? I would accept a nine figure sum off your club. You can afford it. You could sell another hotel, you bent bastards.
Click to expand...
LOL
 
Bobby Taylor's Pub Team said:
If the legal case offered an existential threat is it not likely they would? Maybe that over exaggerates our worst case scenario.
Click to expand...
You can argue it both ways, but there is a bit more to it either way.

There is so much work and time that would have gone into it to even get it to that stage (when the charges came out). By that point, you have commited time and money with multiple consultants, professionals, teams of people, timeframes, funders, brokers, potential end users etc.

Projects get shelved a lot of the time, but it is most often more expensive to do that and re-start later. Plus when you do, costs and timeframes shift, regulations change, and it becomes unpredictable.

I think people also look at it purely as a 300m 'footballing' project, because it is part of the stand. But it is more than that and there are three or four component parts not reliant on the stadium itself. The hotel (the biggest in manchester, when complete), the multiple f&b outlets, the retail, and possibly offices, will pay for themselves. As investments, in that location, with the co-op arena just finished. So the only thing you are then potentially questioning against any doom outcome, is build the stand or not. And as they are so complexly interlinked, it is almost impossible to separate them. Might as well commit to the whole lot come what may.

That's how I see it. It is reassuring, to an extent, that the club have kept going with it and not shown any hesitation. But given the accrued momentum on it, for something of this scale, the claim that it is 'proof' of complete confidence, is a bit basic. But it does imo go the opposite way however, i.e had it been paused, with the implications and costs that carries, I would almost certainly read that as the club being concerned.

For me the club's own statement, and the progress on the pitch, is all the proof of confidence I need, fwiw.
 
terraloon said:
As I posted months ago I am not going to post an opinion re the main charges until we hear the outcome from the IC. My take on many of the charges does accord with the majority view on here but there are some of the charges like the Mancini contract issue that will , if the email chain is indeed fact, will be down to the assessment of the panel members in terms on balance were payments from city and as a consequence I don’t think it’s even close to a foregone conclusion

In terms of your take about how City would behave I personally can’t see how they would have not carried on with the stadium project.If that project had been put on ice surely the whole of football save city would see that as a self sign of guilt

As for sponsors again the bulk of the football community outside City are of the opinion that there are direct links the narrative from many supporters is that the majority of Cities . That almost certainly isn’t the case indeed most clubs see the value offered through greater number of “ partners” as opposed to major sponsors exclusively . There is no way that City would be saying anything differently to new sponsors in term of their innocence.

As for Gundogan. Sorry he is only on a one year deal at City so the question of him playing in the Championship next season isn’t really an issue still a very good player at soon to be 34 he may indeed get another deal but at this time he is only a city player guaranteed till May 25.

As for Utd hiring Berrada that is an interesting one and there is an alternative narrative that particularly if it suited Utd and potentially the PL to have in effect access to someone that was close to the facts and should ultimately he, Berrada, be implicated then an exit from Utd would certainly follow.
Click to expand...
You are indeed a fuckin loon
 
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