Which begs the question, why conclude that 4 year investigation, with charging us with over 115 items. That was the time for the PL not to wedge themselves between a rock and a hard place, but in they squeezed.
And round and round we now go.
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
Which begs the question, why conclude that 4 year investigation, with charging us with over 115 items. That was the time for the PL not to wedge themselves between a rock and a hard place, but in they squeezed.
And round and round we now go.
Away to Cowdenbeath, what a treat.Forfar 4 Manchester City 115
M18CTID
Well-Known Member
Exactly. There’s no smoking gun on City’s side regarding the 2014 settlement agreement. And loads of clubs entered into similar settlement agreements at the time and have done since (funnily enough, I don’t see Harris going after any of them and calling them cheats).Yes, that was my point really. UEFA was determined to get City on FFP in 2014 even if it meant changing their rules at the last minute. My question was why would they want to do that? And I think the answer is concern over City opening up a "tap" of Abu Dhabi sponsorships, and making up the shortfall with two very convenient intangible asset sales. Both of which were addressed in the settlement, and both which could be described as accelerating income to which, maybe, Harris is referring. None of which is illegal or "fraudulent", by the way. Anyway, it doesn't really matter, I was just trying to give him the benefit of the doubt. The ****.
Harris is re-hashing a decade old story and sensationalising it because he knows all his brain dead followers who suck his cock and hang on his every word will fall for it.
Dribble
Well-Known Member
I thought it was just me, but I liked it anyway just for the effort put in & the general gist of it. :-)I've no idea what you're taking about, but I've liked it anyway.
Gingers Dad
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2011
- Messages
- 7,016
That will depend on whether the chips are potato or chocolateProbably deciding if there will be barms or muffins with the chips at lunch breaks.
I can understand why some people fear a stitch-up, but it's going to be a long 18 months or so if you start heading down that rabbit hole. That way madness lies. Until we see anything to suggest the contrary, I'm going to assume that the panel will be independent and that we will get a fair hearing. Otherwise, what's the point in any of this? Personally, I think there is far too much at stake, on numerous levels, for the panel just to hand out some arbitrary punishment to us in order to appease certain parties. The fallout from a guilty verdict will be huge, so they'd need cogent evidence that holds up to extensive scrutiny.
Yes, but by the other end of that is, if there is any form of punishment, then we must be guilty.
And before I get tons of shit from the bravado wankfest, I mean just that logic, not that I think we are just to be clear.
M18CTID
Well-Known Member
So you think we’re guilty then? ;)Yes, but by the other end of that is, if there is any form of punishment, then we must be guilty.
And before I get tons of shit from the bravado wankfest, I mean just that logic, not that I think we are just to be clear.
Just another example, PB, of the poor standard of management in the PL. You can hear Amanda’s frustration there. She must think it’s like dealing with children.Everton, like Newcastle, were stupid and wouldn't sign the NDA/Confidentiality agreements that Amanda Staveley wanted them to sign. I've seen some of the emails. There's one where Staveley (and I can't remember the exact words) says something like "How does these people not understand that this is a standard thing in these situations?"
give it to gordon
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Nov 2013
- Messages
- 17,523
- Team supported
- Manchester City
Respectfully it’s a bit of a silly take - you say City can’t be cleared as it would look bad for the PL, but City being found guilty looks fucking horrific for the PL……
Anyone who believes that the PL would have ever wanted something like this process needs their heads checked. It’s a PR disaster whichever outcome results.
Equally the idea that some of the UKs most respected KCs would want to put their name to a kangaroo court *and* provide City with one of the only possible remedies for appeal is thankfully so insane as to be a non-starter.
Fair do's
But after the Birmingham bombers, post office, miners, Hillsborough the list goes innocent people found guilty of rape, murder ( even my experience with the law ) innocent people being found guilty.
Fuck me even liverpool got cleared of any wrong doing at the last cl final despite fake tickets, jibbing in all over social media. Everyone due liverpool were the problem yet some how it was all the other authorities that were in the wrong not liverpool.
I have very little faith in the British system.
I wish I had your confidence !!
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 11,982
Which begs the question, why conclude that 4 year investigation, with charging us with over 115 items. That was the time for the PL not to wedge themselves between a rock and a hard place, but in they squeezed.
And round and round we now go.
Because the club didn't provide the PL with the external evidence which would have countered their allegations (for understandable reasons). So they had no option but to refer the allegations to the IC?