Tbf, Alison has demonstrated in a gentle way that she is deffo not anti City. She impressed our club.
PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules
- Thread starter ayrshire_blue
- Start date
cheekybids
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 13,077
That should tip the thread towards the players know we’ve won the case ;)
cheekybids
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 13,077
It’s ok smiling for the cameras but I’d be questioning the CEO how they threw City under the bus with a stage managed media leaked 115 hit job.
What benefit did that do for the premier league?
I know the arbitrators will stop short of calling it corrupt & our legal fraternity will consider it business over cigars & cognac & all very just but in my mind & im not trying to convince anyone else. On Alison’s & a few others watch an orchestrated attack happened.
It was a class war, we were considered lower class than Rags, Dippers, Arse & Spurs so we were fair game. No fucking way in this world would the premier league have investigated the Rags off a few emails.
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 15,072
Yes, I wouldn't say that she impressed the club. I would say she was duplicitous in her smiling act and Khaldoon was being equally duplicitous in his clearly different public treatment of Brittain and Masters. It's hard to take anything anyone says or does at face value these days.
As you say, though, it is incredible people would think she has nothing to do with what is going on. Masters reports to her, after all.
cheekybids
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 13,077
It’s all double speak, even when complimentary it’s a subtle dig at the organisation. I wasn’t suitable to the boardroom with my reluctance to avoid saying what it is.
“Khaldoon Al Mubarak, the chairman of Manchester City, praised Alison Brittain after the recent trophy presentation. Her presence and genuine warmth while greeting the players were noted positively, especially in contrast to the Premier League chief executive's absence.”
dickie davies
Well-Known Member
I hope you’re not Perry Suckling as it’s going to hurt when it hits the floor
SilverFox2
Well-Known Member
Surely their previous control of Panel results (say Leicester) and media content and of course other PL clubshas made their decision makers confident they can get a result whatever the panel comes up with?
What I mean is in normal circumstances legal advice should be taken (as we all do) but their decision makers may be happy whatever the result because they can get their bills paid and get the media to focus solely on their wins.
Unlikely as you say but perhaps they don't care any more.
I would agree with you if it wasnt for the sheer volume of the charges, i think if they had any belief that they could make any of the serious charges stick the spurious charges of none cooperation etc would not have needed to be included.
give it to gordon
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Nov 2013
- Messages
- 20,765
- Team supported
- Manchester City
This duty of good faith I real don't understand.
The hateful 8 with that letter didn't break that rule.
Dippers hacking didn't break that rule.
It seems this duty of good faith is only applied when it suits the American cartel.
Also how did the pl lawyers agree with the charge sheet with so many mistakes in
The hateful 8 with that letter didn't break that rule.
Dippers hacking didn't break that rule.
It seems this duty of good faith is only applied when it suits the American cartel.
Also how did the pl lawyers agree with the charge sheet with so many mistakes in
ONTHERUNWITHTHAKSIN
Well-Known Member
Bang on
In modern society you cannot take anyone at face value
Values have changed, in the past a man’s word was solid gold now it’s double edged
the plasterer
Well-Known Member
As I'm away for new year and every fucker is still in bed, thought I'd have a catch up on this thread, dafuk have I just read??, Cas, BDO, PL, City, Masters, Fordham, etc etc..... 20 minutes later my head is completely fucked with all this legal shit, I'm off for a walk along the beach to clear my mind ready to have a nosey on the transfer forum :-))
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 15,072
That's all just detail. Nothing really has changed in the last twelve months: it will be very difficult for the PL to prove the most serious charges. The others I don't care much about.
Relax and a happy new year to you :)
DJBusinesscake
Well-Known Member
Go have a read in the United thread, that'll cheer you up.
Well it would be great if you are right and I have credited the PL with more credibility than they deserve.
bluemanchester
Well-Known Member
100% correct. Include the other red tops plus 1 as well.Obviously you're knowledge is far greater than mine, but in my limited experience if the main charges are solid its unusual for the lesser ones to be added as they dont add anything to the case overall but they certainly play well in the press.
salfordbluetrue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 2 Jul 2013
- Messages
- 4,324
I think that is your professionalism shining through. Offset this by viewing the damage, the cartel under the PL guise, has done to City`s business acumen over the decade, and the costs. Then look at who is going to pay for this attack because the cartel will offset all costs, onto every club in every league, it is a win win for the cartel regardless of the outcome.
This is true in all litigation - you'd focus on your strong claims and not dilute them with loads of noise from other matters. The PL chose a kitchen sink approach which I think is a mistake. But I don't think it necessarily signals that they expect to lose the serious ones. It really would be a strange move to pursue a case of this nature without confidence in the core of the case.
Still intrigued why Khaldoon was complimentary to Brittain in his annual club interview.