PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

I’ve tried to find evidence of that statement but can’t. Every article I googled says she gave no reason. It would be quite telling if it were true and should be followed up.
Things can be made to disappear. Not saying it's happened in this case because I haven't got a clue, but I remember reading an article with Scudamore, he was talking about Leicester some time after they had won the league. He basically said people got very nervous after Leicester won the league. The article then disappeared like a puff of smoke.
 
The context was that the committee were saying ‘what about City’ & under pressure he described them as smaller clubs. I thought the DCMS were a disgrace & if that’s all they’ve taken from the meeting you may as well hand it over to Talksport.

Never thought I’d defend that prick Masters but that panel was wank!

Exactly.
 
Albeit for reasons that aren’t clear at the moment, Ceferin has now come out and essentially said CAS got it wrong and City were bang to rights, so there is certainly a non-zero chance the PL tribunal finds differently to CAS.
You not joining in the post match celebrations? We've scored at spurs, it's a groundbreaking moment for ickle citeh.
 
Albeit for reasons that aren’t clear at the moment, Ceferin has now come out and essentially said CAS got it wrong and City were bang to rights, so there is certainly a non-zero chance the PL tribunal finds differently to CAS.

WTF does non-zero mean?

What points of law did Ceferin base his assumption on? Ah I see he was just spouting innuendo & sensationalism which isn’t what trial lawyers normally do but is common for politicians.

Sniff, sniff, sniff………
 
they said last week there is a development on our case and only thing was a drunk Ceferin saying he is a lawyer but still can say stupid things without thinking.
which wasnt really a development on the PL case.
Maybe there has been a development but not one they were hoping for so they went with the Ceferin angle instead?
 
Last edited:
The crazy thing is under the first iteration of FFP, Leeds, Portsmouth, Rangers & Fiorentina would've passed. Go figure! \0/

It was always about stopping City & never about stopping reckless owners willing to gamble their clubs' very existence with a throw of the dice.
If we'd had FFS/PSR in 2008, we'd have passed easily, even without the allowance for owner investment. After all the allowances for things like depreciation and youth development expenses, I think we'd have shown a profit.

But, as Ivesaid before, in June 2008 we nearly went into administration as we couldn't pay the second instalment on the Sven transfers the previous summer. You have to ask therefore, what is the point of FFP? Because it would have stopped us, Leeds or Portsmouth from going under.
 

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.