PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[ChicagoBlue]

Do you hunk Khaldoon will ‘have his say’ as promised.

Yes, but I doubt it’ll be the “say” most City fans would like it to be.

Win or lose, he’s going to be forced to make a significant statement, but I doubt it will carry the vitriol with which most of us would wish it was soaked.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

I think the consensus on here is that there will be no "nuclear" option. My own view is that the club doesn't need one. We aren't being found guilty of the most serious charges. I am thinking the club's long-term approach will be to welcome the new regulator, cosy up to the new PL administration (there will have to be one) and then deal with the usual suspects on a case by case basis when the time is right. There is no hurry. All imho, of course.

I agree.

I think they will neither gloat over any perceived victory, nor shed a tear over any perceived loss, as long as their business accounts and reputation are not sullied.

That’s the kind of measured, bide your time, approach for which Mansour & Khaldoon have become known, imho.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Do you hunk Khaldoon will ‘have his say’ as promised.

CB already answered. Just to note I agree completely.

 

[shemnel]

Yes, but what did the VAR recording say? Any day now. Any day.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Thanks pal. Not sure what the other guy is on tbh. Odd.

I've been reading a guy on Twitter, Russell Scott and that's what's piqued my interest. The way he puts it, it's cut and dried and involves high level conspiracy and cover ups. Sounds crazy tbh. If it was all true, surely City would already have been brought to book and punished accordingly? A lot of Liverpool fans I know are already counting titles they're going to be given "when justice is served". They almost sound desperate.

I think Scott's name has only really appeared in discussions here in the last few days - he's the one behind the FOI about City reps meeting a sports minister.

The implication he draws is that no-one else had a meeting with them (over a regulator? that sounds highly unlikely that they'd only talk to one club), and that the lack of details implies a dodgy deal. It presumably wasn't a public meeting, so I'm not sure why the details would become known - maybe when the discussion of the regulator bill in Parliament happens there will be some details.

So:
- did the minister talk to other clubs, or offer talks with other clubs?
- is there any factual reason to believe that anything untoward was discussed?

As with the Spiegel emails, there needs to be context to understand better what happened, and Scott has sensationalised one aspect (as far as I am aware, I may be wrong).

 

[manimanc]

Yes, but what did the VAR recording say? Any day now. Any day.

Huh?

 

[shemnel]

Huh?

I was just poking fun at our own thread, where we went through a rather giddy stage of claiming we had damning VAR recordings that would silence the PL. As if we ever needed such evidence. It dragged on as a "any day now" for quite some weeks.

 

[Paladin]

I imagine all of the criticism about how long the process is taking, from fans, pundits and journalists alike, must be stinging the PL. As mentioned previously, it’s causing considerable reputational damage to them now. Are they really going to try and ride it out for the next 18 months?

I guess the only way they could plausibly expedite the process would be to drop some of the harder to prove charges or try and strike a deal, but that seems highly improbable. Not even sure if that’s possible now that it’s been referred to an independent commission?! What a mess they’ve got themselves into.

The Telegraph claim that some developments will be announced this week, reiterated by them yesterday might have some substance.

Maybe the parties have submitted their evidence on some of the charges and they are about to be withdrawn from the list. That would leave a lower number (hopefully much lower) of substantive charges, and set a more realistic narrative. This surely would benefit all sides.

 

[bluenova]

I think Scott's name has only really appeared in discussions here in the last few days - he's the one behind the FOI about City reps meeting a sports minister.

The implication he draws is that no-one else had a meeting with them (over a regulator? that sounds highly unlikely that they'd only talk to one club), and that the lack of details implies a dodgy deal. It presumably wasn't a public meeting, so I'm not sure why the details would become known - maybe when the discussion of the regulator bill in Parliament happens there will be some details.

So:
- did the minister talk to other clubs, or offer talks with other clubs?
- is there any factual reason to believe that anything untoward was discussed?

As with the Spiegel emails, there needs to be context to understand better what happened, and Scott has sensationalised one aspect (as far as I am aware, I may be wrong).

Pretty sure it has already come out that every PL club gave feedback about the white paper, and that many of them met up with ministers.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Pretty sure it has already come out that every PL club gave feedback about the white paper, and that many of them met up with ministers.

Yes, I thought someone else had said that here, but didn't know who/where. It's inconceivable that they wouldn't have asked everyone.

If they happened, the whole "City collude with minister in secret meeting" is laid bare as tosh and the whole thing dies.

It's the Telegraph though, and may be complicated by the takeover wrangle that's going on at the moment.