PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Where the fuck did I quote or mention you? You seem determined to find something personally insulting today for some unknown reason.

Probably a projection my overwhelming guilt at hijacking 2 or so pages with multiple posts about one item. And the timing of a post claiming something of the sort immediately after.
 
Probably a projection my overwhelming guilt at hijacking 2 or so pages with multiple posts about one item. And the timing of a post claiming something of the sort immediately after.
That would require me to read the constant bollocks though. I skip most and just make sure there's no new detail popped up. Perhaps I'll leave the thread for 18 months, I can see the actual experts on here (who have to keep on explaining the same thing over and over) doing the same shortly, but perhaps they've got more patience than me ;)
 
Get the first line, cheers.

The second, says/means nothing. Not without then making the 'limitation period' A rather than B in the earlier example.

I may be completely wrong, but I would anticipate that the PL can go back as far as they need to based on what they've discovered. They had 6 years from the discovery period to bring charges which they've done. And from what they've discovered there are concerns over accounts back to 2009 so they're within their rights to bring charges back to that time period.
 
My take of these charges ultimately come down to;

1) IF City were found guilty and were threatened with expulsion from the league etc - this would spark the Super league issue once again - City would move over to the Super league and my guess is quite a few clubs would follow - ultimately leading to more and more clubs joining. Chelsea would join, Barca, any and all Arab owned clubs (PSG, Newcastle, Villa), as they will want to align with Sheikh Mansour (political/regional basis). Also to avoid the premier league potentially scrutinising them in the future, allowing the owners to have more control over spending etc. Also the cash incentives for other clubs will be a huge incentive. Also, all of the relevant City Football Group teams (Girona etc) would also follow suit - meaning further losses to various leagues. Therefore, the threat of expulsion from the premier league would only mean the downfall of the premier league, which im pretty sure they would want to avoid.

2) City would NOT be punished / relegated as the premier league would be losing BILLIONS! Man City confirmed income of £712.8m during 22-23 season, goodness knows how much for this current season. Pretty sure they've broken the record/come close to it - and it will only continue to increase - especially with more trophies and a growing international and national fanbase. If City were expelled, where is that £712.8m + going every year? Would the premier league want to lose their highest earners? Broadcasting deals would go down the drain?

I personally believe that whether city are guilty or not, nothing major will come of it. Maybe a fine at worst.

There is too much for so many parties to lose if City were relegated/expelled. Whether rival fans like it or not, City is currently heading towards being the biggest club in the world (they are already the BEST team in the world) - the newer generation of fans / the middle eastern / far eastern fan base is growing rapidly - and will continue to do so.

Having travelled extensively, especially to the middle eastern regions, I only see one teams' flag flying, Manchester City. Even the new generation of people in Africa are slowly moving away from Chelsea/Lpool/United. Salah brought in Egyptian fans for Liverpool. He will be leaving soon, as will their Egyptian fanbase. Players moving over to Saudi will also contribute to the distortion of international premier league fan bases.

Also - especially due to globalisation, the ease in the worldwide broadcasting of games, the top class social media / media produced by City has and will massively increase its audience and therefore fan base, much more than clubs in the 90's and 2000's were able to do. This is literally a new and unchartered territory of football dominance, and as much as other clubs/fans/leagues seethe at the sight - City are just far too big and powerful for any decisions to majorly impact them. Quite literally - the ball is in their court, and hence why these FFP charges will not come to fruition.

Good luck to all of those hoping for these 115 'charges' to end City. City aren't going anywhere but up.
 
I may be completely wrong, but I would anticipate that the PL can go back as far as they need to based on what they've discovered. They had 6 years from the discovery period to bring charges which they've done. And from what they've discovered there are concerns over accounts back to 2009 so they're within their rights to bring charges back to that time period.
I know I've said it before on this thread but for those that missed it, I find it funny that they didn't have concerns over our accounts going back to 2007 and 2008 when Shinawatra owned us. Not a chance the current ownership is anything like as dodgy as he was!
 
I know I've said it before on this thread but for those that missed it, I find it funny that they didn't have concerns over our accounts going back to 2007 and 2008 when Shinawatra owned us. Not a chance the current ownership is anything like as dodgy as he was!
We were shit then though and didn’t pose a threat to the Red c*nt cartel . Being owned by “Arabs” sort of boiled the Red c*nt cartel,s piss didn’t it and the racist slug in Spain . So we are now here …….

Still fighting and winning ! ;-)
 
I know I've said it before on this thread but for those that missed it, I find it funny that they didn't have concerns over our accounts going back to 2007 and 2008 when Shinawatra owned us. Not a chance the current ownership is anything like as dodgy as he was!
It was all ignored when we were a "comedy club" and no threat to the "established elite".
 
Firstly limitation is nothing to do with the investigation process it’s a function of when the claim is issued (or such equivalent in these proceedings).

I can’t speak for other posters but the way I read that post is that the publication of the Der Spiegel marked the commencement of the limitation period (as that appears to be the date of discovery) and thereby the charges were brought within six years of that date and are therefore within the prescribed limitation period for fraud.
Now that makes more sense to us laymen. Cheers mate.
 

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.