PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Any ideas why this is on Manchester Evening News website today

Have your say on the result of Man City's charges​

Is the punishment given to Man City fair?
Yes
No
Unsure
Your responses may be used anonymously in print, online or on the social pages for brands owned and published by Reach Plc

 
Any ideas why this is on Manchester Evening News website today

Have your say on the result of Man City's charges​

Is the punishment given to Man City fair?
Yes
No
Unsure
Your responses may be used anonymously in print, online or on the social pages for brands owned and published by Reach Plc

If it's the MEN it might just relate to the 1905 bribery scandal we got punished for. They're not the quickest.
 
I might be wrong here but didn't Stefan say that not providing absolutely everything you have is a tried and trusted litigation tactic.
Although I'm not lawyer or accountant, I've said this many times, we have no idea what the EPL have asked for.

They could have said they want to see all of Etihads transactions, City & the lawyers have told them them they don't have to so the EPL have thrown non-cooperation at us.

It's been airbrushed from history that City & the EPL went to court to prevent this being out in the public domain & it was the judge at the time overruling this while at the same time chastising the EPL for dragging their feet

I believe you only have to keep records of contracts for 10 years & Mancini was sackied in 2013, so it depends on whether the 10 years is from the end of his contract or when he was sacked & the consultancy work in UAE is even early
 
Anti-climax, except for that we won the game… pretty much everyone had it written in the stars that we would roll over for them.

Brilliant win at their dump on a day that was meant to be all about them, while our fans were absolutely top-draw all day - “impeccable”, as described by Fergie, and loudly ensuring Frank Swift was not forgotten. I felt pretty climactic after that, to be fair!
They tried to pin the fireworks on us during the silence, then it turned out it was rags doing them and it was ignored.
 
Any ideas why this is on Manchester Evening News website today

Have your say on the result of Man City's charges​

Is the punishment given to Man City fair?
Yes
No
Unsure
Your responses may be used anonymously in print, online or on the social pages for brands owned and published by Reach Plc

Probably accidentally made it live.
They will get things ready ahead of time
 
Any ideas why this is on Manchester Evening News website today

Have your say on the result of Man City's charges​

Is the punishment given to Man City fair?
Yes
No
Unsure
Your responses may be used anonymously in print, online or on the social pages for brands owned and published by Reach Plc

So they’ve decided we’ve been punished. Interesting.

The most likely explanation is they’ve asked a work experience kid to prepare a poll, and it’s been published prematurely. It’s run by a combination of kids and incompetent bitter over the hill hacks.
 

For anyone who wants to read it.

Holt seems to written this piece through a veil of tears, it’s a plague on everyone’s house. He quotes :

Whoever “wins”,’ a Premier League chief executive told me on Monday, ‘it is the ultimate worthless victory. There can be no winners. There are only losers both ways.

Clarity is what everyone craves. And stability. But there is a widespread recognition that if we are not careful, we are going to kill the golden goose. We are on the edge of a precipice here.’


Well, yes, but you drove yourselves to this cliff edge while being cheered on by the press who are now lamenting a potential City victory in the 115 case - which was always a strong possibility given the outcome of the CAS hearing.

When this verdict is finally released in City’s favour I want pain. Lots of pain. I want casualties, I want vengeance on the people who foisted this stupidity on themselves and us fans. The fans are owed their pound of flesh and not just a pound, I want the whole stinking fucking carcass.
 
It’s almost a circular argument. If they need us to provide ‘evidence’ and let’s assume we haven’t, whatever that means, how do they get to charge us in the first place?
Alternatively, they have enough evidence to charge us, so where does ‘non-cooperation’ fit it?
Show us the evidence that you backhanded Mancini....

We can't as we didn't.....

You fuckers aren't cooperating with us...
 
not really, i think the pl asked for things way outside its remit so could say that we didnt supply the info they asked for but its the pls decision to decide if they had any right to ask for the information they wanted, by all accounts they were asking for such ridiculous things as the personal accounts of the sheikh and access to the etihads books which they have absolutely no remit to ask for.

That's what I said ....

The PL asked for things they think the club were required to provide and the club disagreed. Who is right will be determined by the panel.

Let's not forget the club's counter evidence will include a statement from Mansour, like at CAS, that he never paid any monies to a sponsor and financial analysis from ADUG's accounts that ADUG never did so. It's likely imho that the panel will think that is sufficient to meet the club's responsibilities on provision of information in respect of ADUG/Mansour.

Whether the club were required to provide the information earlier will be a question, I imagine.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top