PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Holcombe bloo said:
So are you saying you think one or more of the ‘independent panel’ can be influenced by masters and in turn the cartel clubs?
Let’s hope not as it could be a bumpy ride and an appeal etc if so.
Click to expand...

I can't speak to UEFA's procedures other than to say that I wouldn't trust a European organisation to have a fair process on anything but that is because, having spent nearly all my professional life in France and Switzerland, they have turned me into a raving cynic on matters of European process :)

But on the PL's process, I don't think there is anything to worry about for many reasons which I have previously tried to explain. I think the APT judgments have since proven that. And we are British, of course ....
 
Academica said:
Which legal team?
Click to expand...
If it's ok with you, I wouldn't say, but there are only 2, I believe? It was an acknowledgement that we / they had won the case for City. It was in a meeting (small group) so not with the office junior in it, if you know what I mean.
Wouldn't like to say more, but bookmark and I will after it comes out (even if incorrect).
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
Well if Ceferin & Masters can go back to their "independent" panels and tell them they've essentially by-passed them in the middle of an investigation and arranged a deal, then clearly they can't be that independent can they?
Click to expand...

The PL rules allow the parties to agree to a settlement, I think, as long as the disciplinary panel agrees to the terms. I don't think that's at all bad ....
 
Asa's left peg said:
If it's ok with you, I wouldn't say, but there are only 2, I believe? It was an acknowledgement that we / they had won the case for City. It was in a meeting (small group) so not with the office junior in it, if you know what I mean.
Wouldn't like to say more, but bookmark and I will after it comes out (even if incorrect).
Click to expand...
Was there any shagging in this 'meeting'?
 
Asa's left peg said:
If it's ok with you, I wouldn't say, but there are only 2, I believe? It was an acknowledgement that we / they had won the case for City. It was in a meeting (small group) so not with the office junior in it, if you know what I mean.
Wouldn't like to say more, but bookmark and I will after it comes out (even if incorrect).
Click to expand...

Thanks for the information.

Could you say what "won the case" meant, in your opinion? That the PL couldn't prove the most serious allegations? Or that they couldn't prove any?

In a complicated case like this, or the APT case, I always think "won" or "lost" aren't particularly helpful for understanding what's going on ....
 
JASR said:
I think an adapted rendition of 10 green bottles is in order.

115 charges hanging over our heads,
115 charges hanging over our heads,
And if one malicious charge should be thrown out for lack of any clear irrefutable coherent evidence,
They’ll be 114 charging hanging over our heads.
Etc

Line 3 needs a bit of tightening up…
Click to expand...

Line 3 would scan better with cogent rather than coherent. Try it ....
 
dadnlad said:
we took a pinch years ago to try and fit in look how that turned out.
Click to expand...
What was clearly a double-cross could well have been the defining moment in all of this. Together with the PL indifference to Liverpool's hack of City's database, City must've realised at some point that appeasement was only serving to cede the Sudetenland to UEFA and the PL.
 
halfcenturyup said:
I can't speak to UEFA's procedures other than to say that I wouldn't trust a European organisation to have a fair process on anything but that is because, having spent nearly all my professional life in France and Switzerland, they have turned me into a raving cynic on matters of European process :)

But on the PL's process, I don't think there is anything to worry about for many reasons which I have previously tried to explain. I think the APT judgments have since proven that. And we are British, of course ....
Click to expand...
It's those horrible, smelly Johnny Foreigners, innit? The fuckers don't even have God's own language as their mother tongue.


;-)
 
halfcenturyup said:
Thanks for the information.

Could you say what "won the case" meant, in your opinion? That the PL couldn't prove the most serious allegations? Or that they couldn't prove any?

In a complicated case like this, or the APT case, I always think "won" or "lost" aren't particularly helpful for understanding what's going on ....
Click to expand...
From how it was said to me it was a 'slap on the back' type situation/review of completed cases. I agree - it's short on a lot of detail.
 
Goodlove said:
I think you’ve hit the nail on the head with your ‘the process is the punishment’ statement.

The reputational damage has been done and, I believe, in some opposition fans eyes will never be undone. To them we are cheats and probably always will be, regardless of the verdict.
Click to expand...
Which is why I’m 100% looking forward to our chairman speaking out. He’ll take a fine on the chin for calling them all out afterwards
 
Holcombe bloo said:
So if we win and the prem have to pay us say £10-20 million in costs can we count that towards prs/ffp?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure the costs are in the club in the first place. They are in CFG, I think.

Maybe we can put any income from cost awards in the club, but the actual costs in CFG just to annoy the fuck out of Tebas :)
 
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