PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Pretty shocking what he's saying in my opinion...he is basically saying he thinks we got away with it because our lawyers were better on the day, not because we were innocent... scandalous accusation when you think about it
What Rumbsy should have followed up with is , "if you were that confident why didn't you appeal then"? but if course that doesn't suit the agenda.
 
if we could just sue one journo who has stated lies on us or one idiot like Tebas etc and set an example of him with all the legal power we have...

but yes, we are a punchbag for many currently, the agenda is clear abut discrediting our club.

the original club statement said we want to end this for once and all but that is very much needed because if we cannot then this smear campaign will never end.
 
Hence why they can't afford Philips & either need a massive sponsorship boost, or to sell a high value player or two before July to avoid an Everton.

Richest club in the world or not, this is FFP/PSR at work as the Cartel Clubs intended.
Exactly
 
Mischief-making by the Telegraph. I expect getting that headline was the sole purpose of requesting an interview with him. They even tell you the loaded question they asked to elicit the required response.

And he uses the word "concrete" out of context twice. I don't think he knows what it means.
We should put the **** in a concrete coat then the fucker would understand.
 
Hence my point that the annual accounts weren't mis-stated. If the Etihad contract was at fair value, properly serviced and paid in full, the accounts are fine. They would be "more" mis-stated by taking a huge part of fair value sponsorship income out and accounting for it as equity. So, if the accounts aren't mis-stated, they have nothing serious contract breaches with which to charge the club under their own rules, apart from some possible disclosures.
However if the money came from our owner (it didn’t ) but they are saying it did then the true value is the amount paid by the sponsor even though that is below market rate plus I suspect the money coming from our Should have been accounted for in a different way (equity) also whilst I don’t believe Etihad etc are related and this is not the definition of related but a non related party wouldn’t allow themselves to be used in this way proof to me it didn’t happen but if proven to have happened then another problem
 
To confirm, this is your opinion and is not supported by any sort of facts.

The PL would not be finding City guilty of fraud albeit they could/would strongly infer it. Any ruling by the tribunal cannot be appealed outside of the PL environment, unless it is founded upon such completely egregious reasoning as to convince a commercial court to take it on, and even then, a commercial court has already ruled the PL have jurisdiction to hear the case, not them.

TLDR version, unless City put forth such evidence as to show completely incontrovertibly that everything was above board, the IC acknowledges it and openly ignores it, the case will end within the PL environment.
Who died and made you the ultimate authority on this matter? You know the same as most on here, that is to say fuck all, simple as...trying to insist on anything different is just you talking shit out of your ass...
 

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.