PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Claytop said:
Pretty sure that's not true, as I recall there was no indication the time-barred stuff wouldn't have been dismissed as well as the rest.
Click to expand...

You're right, it was never looked at, so we don't know. I'll rephrase that.

But we do know that UEFA based their charges, initial ruling and most of their case on being able to use the time barred stuff and lost when they couldn't see it.
 
UUJblue said:
Guys is it as simple to try and match these rules breaks up to this document?


So b13 is something to do with the reporting of meetings

E3 - delivering accounts on time?

E11 - providing P&L accounts by March for the next season

This is very high level but we could maybe break down if some of these are simple admin errors?
Click to expand...
Sounds like some rather petty, low-level charges in amongst them?
 
LongsightM13 said:
Again, wrong
Click to expand...
For example this

The Cas panel of three European lawyers decided by a majority 2-1, however, that it would not consider the legitimacy of those Etisalat payments, because they were made more than five years before the CFCB charges were brought in May 2019, so were “time-barred”.

I am not enjoying any of this and I am properly pissed off. I am actually shocked that these fuckers did it after 4 years of being investigated and we are literally on our own. The very fact they've done in a month when Chelsea new owners are spending like £600mil on transfer and the PL teams spent more on transfer in this winter window than other four European league put together is telling me we are fighting for our lives here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

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.