PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Bez said:
In the eyes of the morons, if we are cleared of the main charges we are still cheats. And, if we are found guilty of the main charges, we are cheats. Either way, the morons believe we are cheats. But, say we are cleared of the main charges and there is no expulsion from the premier league/no points deduction/no titles given to the red cartel etc, imagine how tormented the morons are going to feel - they are going to feel absolutely terrible. They may repeat to themselves "City are cheats" while having a shit or combing their hair, but they are going to be burning away inside. They may repeat to themselves "City are cheats, City are cheats", but we will still have the titles, the memories, the records, the accolades etc. The morons, they will have nothing but pain and despair as their best friend. Bring it on.
Click to expand...
Screenshot_20231122_201941_X.jpg
Ex rags and dipper players.
Fans of the red cartel.
Sky sports.
Talksport.
Twat magic twat hat and the other anti city racist nimrods.
Daily mail.

This is their head 24/7.

Fuckin love it.
 
If or when we win---good. Others can celebrate like no other.
If we don't then the situation will be horrendous for us AND every club, agent, sponsor or whoever has been involved with us AND other clubs whether involved with us or not.The system allows it and will have been used or abused by others. Loopholes will always be found wherever there are fingers and pies.
All we can say is that one bad deal will be replicated many times over by many clubs or businesses or agencies. AND EVERY OTHER CLUB WILL BE INVOLVED because the system allowed it. Nobody escapes this one.
 
Gone for a Burton said:
It's not a 'Witch Hunt' of the owners.

It's legitimate criticism of the executive team who are making bewildering decisions which are alienating the clubs past,present and future core customers.

This is a policy that most 'in touch' businesses avoid.

They may have layers,categories of customers that they 'flex',but they keep the 'core' customers who are there through thin and thinner, because they recognise that these are the people who cover the fixed costs,overheads.

Lose them and the edifice becomes destabilised.

City have become 21st century 'Guinea Hunters', ignoring the pound in pursuit of the shilling !!
Click to expand...
Ok, I’m not saying I agree with what is or has happened, but unfortunately it’s the way it’s going in the Premier League. The core fans, those flat capped blokes, like my dad, who paid their coppers to get in week after week are gone. The Premier League will live on whatever the outcome, it’s the way of the world. What really annoys me is that the red cartel have been doing it for years.
 
Bez said:
In the eyes of the morons, if we are cleared of the main charges we are still cheats. And, if we are found guilty of the main charges, we are cheats. Either way, the morons believe we are cheats. But, say we are cleared of the main charges and there is no expulsion from the premier league/no points deduction/no titles given to the red cartel etc, imagine how tormented the morons are going to feel - they are going to feel absolutely terrible. They may repeat to themselves "City are cheats" while having a shit or combing their hair, but they are going to be burning away inside. They may repeat to themselves "City are cheats, City are cheats", but we will still have the titles, the memories, the records, the accolades etc. The morons, they will have nothing but pain and despair as their best friend. Bring it on.
Click to expand...
Don’t worry about them if we are cleared just remind anyone that those behind it (clubs) we’ll be coming for them and dishing the dirt on who the Actual cheats are ..
 
Genuine question (probably a daft one)........despite the rumours that a decision is imminent, is it even possible to have written up the full findings yet? If you take into account the number of working days since the tribunal ended, and you take out the Xmas period, they would need to be writing 15 pages per day to have it ready now. Is it possible to write that many pages per day, including all the legal complexities and references?
 
South Stand Balti said:
Genuine question (probably a daft one)........despite the rumours that a decision is imminent, is it even possible to have written up the full findings yet? If you take into account the number of working days since the tribunal ended, and you take out the Xmas period, they would need to be writing 15 pages per day to have it ready now. Is it possible to write that many pages per day, including all the legal complexities and references?
Click to expand...
AI - Grammarly, ChatGB, CoPilot - no bother. Finished in minutes.
 
South Stand Balti said:
Genuine question (probably a daft one)........despite the rumours that a decision is imminent, is it even possible to have written up the full findings yet? If you take into account the number of working days since the tribunal ended, and you take out the Xmas period, they would need to be writing 15 pages per day to have it ready now. Is it possible to write that many pages per day, including all the legal complexities and references?
Click to expand...
You know what these legal types are like.They probably just use chat gpt and have a long boozy lunch.
 
bluenova said:
Yes, seriously. You've got a bit of knowledge, so I'm surprised by your reply. If City's lawyers had sent a letter to Sky, telling them they were at risk of legal action if they used a term like "cheat" for example, or said they'd been found "guilty at CAS", then the Sky lawyers would make a decision on where to draw the line. If they agreed that it was legally a problem to say it, then Sky would have a duty to tell their pundits that they had to limit what they said, even if they believed it to be true.

I'm genuinely surprised you think different, and I would be willing to bet that every regular pundit/commentator/presenter/talking head at any large media organisation, has this in their contracts.
Click to expand...

Well it doesn't really matter anyway, as it apparently wasn't proven as true but I would argue there is a difference between a pundit not addressing certain issues because they are sensitive and need to be treated with caution, even to the extent of not expressing an opinion if they don't understand all the facts, and purposefully expressing an opinion that isn't their own because the director wants a certain opinion.

The upshot of the latter would be that the opinions these pundits express are even more worthless than we currently think. May as well be Talksport presenters.

Anyway, I'm not really interested in a long discussion about it, but I still stand by my view, possibly in my naivety, of course.
 
slbsn said:
In fairness, the Tribunal didn't say that - that was a submission by HMRC's counsel. From what I can see the Tribunal rejected that...
"The fact that the opinions remained those of Mr Thompson does not detract from this; the control arises from Sky's ability to control the output of the programmes and other services... Mr Thompson had control over his own opinions"

Similar to what I have said about when I go on TS nobody tells me what to say at all. They have editorial control and could, in theory, flip a switch but do not direct an opinion.
Click to expand...

Though to be fair to HCU - and that's not a sentence I will write too often - the FTT did not conclude (as I read it) that it is factually incorrect that Sky had a contractual right to require Phil Thompson to express opinions that were not his own. The Upper tax Tribunal's decision seems to indicate that it did - see para 35 of the UT's judgment* - but that it was subject to an implied condition of reasonableness and was in any event not especially material to the central question of whether Thompson was an employee for tax purposes.

I imagine you do not have any sort of contract with Talksport but if HMRC ever accused you of being an employee of TS rather than an independent contractor, I suspect your freedom from editorial influence is a point that would count in your favour.

I suspect the reality, as someone else posted, is that the majority of cases where an individual is engaged to provide expert/pundit analysis whether pursuant to a formal contract of employment or on an ad-hoc basis contains something similar (for instance to prevent honestly held but potentially libellous opinions from being expressed).

I suppose the shock for some is seeing it laid out in black and white that talking heads within sports broadcasting may be contractually obliged to toe the party line.

* https://assets.publishing.service.g...eef5a8c15e8e/PD__MJ_v_HMRC_final_decision.pdf para 35

-
 
oldius said:
Liverpool's fans are, generally, utterly bonkers about this issue.
Click to expand...
It’s because they have hung so much emotionally on an outcome that they believe will give them vindication and bragging rights. They are definitely more invested in the outcome than any other fans - other than City fans, obviously
 
oldius said:
Liverpool's fans are, generally, utterly bonkers about this issue.
Click to expand...
I was in Turkey last year and in a bar a dipper started chatting to me..he mentioned the 115 charges and said "do you think you will get away with it?"
I replied there's fuck all to get away with as I'm sure we are innocent..he said no smoke without fire..
He wasn't happy when I said I would rather be guilty of the charges than guilty of murdering 39 innocent people.. **** soon fucked off.
We definitely live rent free in their tiny little minds.
 
Chris in London said:
Though to be fair to HCU - and that's not a sentence I will write too often - the FTT did not conclude (as I read it) that it is factually incorrect that Sky had a contractual right to require Phil Thompson to express opinions that were not his own. The Upper tax Tribunal's decision seems to indicate that it did - see para 35 of the UT's judgment* - but that it was subject to an implied condition of reasonableness and was in any event not especially material to the central question of whether Thompson was an employee for tax purposes.

I imagine you do not have any sort of contract with Talksport but if HMRC ever accused you of being an employee of TS rather than an independent contractor, I suspect your freedom from editorial influence is a point that would count in your favour.

I suspect the reality, as someone else posted, is that the majority of cases where an individual is engaged to provide expert/pundit analysis whether pursuant to a formal contract of employment or on an ad-hoc basis contains something similar (for instance to prevent honestly held but potentially libellous opinions from being expressed).

I suppose the shock for some is seeing it laid out in black and white that talking heads within sports broadcasting may be contractually obliged to toe the party line.

* https://assets.publishing.service.g...eef5a8c15e8e/PD__MJ_v_HMRC_final_decision.pdf para 35

-
Click to expand...

Bloody lawyers. I never know where I am with them.
 
blue by birth said:
I was in Turkey last year and in a bar a dipper started chatting to me..he mentioned the 115 charges and said "do you think you will get away with it?"
I replied there's fuck all to get away with as I'm sure we are innocent..he said no smoke without fire..
He wasn't happy when I said I would rather be guilty of the charges than guilty of murdering 39 innocent people.. **** soon fucked off.
We definitely live rent free in their tiny little minds.
Click to expand...

No retreat and no surrender, when you occasion across a rude **** then it's good and proper to be a **** right back.
 
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