PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

LangleyBlue1970 said:
It’s funny on RAWK. They’re praising Harris and his continued obsession to see us ruined. Hes like some god-like hero to them, infact if the worst happened I envisage a statue outside murderfield.

Someone on there has also predicted a 40 point deduction, and then, through sheer paranoia, says it won’t be dished out until a season is deemed where we wouldn’t win the PL anyway, so it looks like we’ve been punished but everyone saves face.

What a fucking weird bunch of people they are on there.
Click to expand...
I do pop on there more regularly than I should - certainly more so that can be good for me - but I just like drinking in their desperation and pain

The last 24 hours or so their thread on CITY has been 'off-the-scale' in their excitement about what punishment(s) we should be handed down.

Whilst I laugh at how ludicrous they are - and how they are totally lacking in awareness of the subject of the charges - I have started to feel a sense of disquiet regarding my concern of whether their level of ignorance, and 'demand' for there to be 'justice', could be somewhat typical of fans across the country and also have the scope to infect right-minded and independent individuals.....

I even have started to have a concern about the findings of the KCs that make up the Independent Panel.

If it is true that they cannot find evidence of the scale of fraud that would be required for CITY to be found guilty of more than 'non-cooperation' - then I just wonder if the clamour for 'justice' might lead to the punishment handed down for our non-cooperation being much more severe than we would currently anticipate - due to the need to satisfy the masses.

And then could this lead to a 2nd round of non-cooperation charges for 2018 onwards - with a precedent already set from this first judgement.

It is clear to me that the 115 approach and the lobbying of Parry and Masters has - to a degree - achieved its goal the masses are at the gates with pitchforks and cannot consider any punishment that is anything less than draconian to be anything other than a cover-up

The cunts on RAWK and elsewhere live in their own bubbles - but I guess so do we on here.

I have started to have some concerns for CITY - due to the need for the PL to 'satisfy the masses' and I hope to fuck that the KCs are utterly robust in how they handle this with independence and objectivity

Heaven forbid that we are found guilty of anything more than non-cooperation
 
Last edited:
What the premier league have done, as I understand it, is gone on a fishing trip at the behest of the red clubs. So there’s a list of “charges” based on a mixture of hacked emails and supposition, all done at the last minute, and the same “charge” repeated for each year, so it comes to 115. They then hit us with that and everyone thinks wow 115 charges they must be bent - reality we probably aren’t, they might find the odd minor technicality but that’s it. All done by the clubs who hate us, especially the 2 that get to vet the incoming PL chief and get him to do their dirty work. In reality we probably have the least to hide (nothing in our records about £50m for a new stadium that didn’t happen) but are the most scrutinised because football is very very dirty. I am extremely confident in our senior execs that they will clear our name, but they won’t be able to clean up the absolute shit and corruption in the game, such as rags, dippers, PIGMOB etc; however we are here to stay, uefa certainly treat us better than they did because they know we are a lot cleaner than most
 
Last edited:
City Mike 1969 said:
they've included the fail safe 'failing to co-operate' within the charges so they've got that to fall back on. If it does, I'd want to City to take them to court and reveal the extent of the information that was requested as I think that would truly pull the PL's pants down. In a perfect world the club would have a smoking gun regarding the behaviour of that rat (P)rick parry during the UEFA case, so that could be raised as a reason for non-cooperation as well.
Click to expand...
It was perfectly understandable for us to be reluctant to “cooperate”. The PL ie our rivals - wanted everything about how our club is run. For obvious reasons (they would benefit & try to emulate our methods). If the investigation had been independent then our modus operandi would not have been jeopardised
 
blueste41 said:
So now your back to organisations setting specific rules that don't apply in law. The law doesn't state the maximum you can pay an employee is "x" but other sporting organisations have such rules.
As I said to you earlier, we agreed to abide by the rules of FFP we can't now challenge them.
Click to expand...
I have to take issue with your statement that
we agreed to abide by the rules of FFP we can't now challenge them
Click to expand...

UEFA's version of the rules has never been the subject of a vote. UEFA does not operate like that. The ECA was "consulted" and expressed its satisfaction with them, though I believe this was expressed by Rumenigge and Co rather than by a democratic process. When the PL considered the introduction of such rules a vote did take place but our club voted against them. So we never agreed to abide by them, and even if we had we most certainly can challenge them now. All that is required is a claim to a UK court by Forest or Everton that their business is to be damaged by a PL independent commission applying rules which are in conflict with UK law. The regulations would then be tested in court and the ruling would be binding.
 
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.