PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[halfcenturyup]

The salivating social media mop really do think they speak for eveyone - in reality, usually a bunch of box room thickos waitng for mum to shout "tea" - unless of course they're not out threatening paediaticians.

That's right. Stupid people. What did foot doctors ever do to them?

 

[Chi-town blues]

Have we verified the person who wrote that actually has a brain cell?

There are no brain cells inside GMC (genetically modified cunts.)

 

[Phil1]

theres an article floating about this morning saying we should have a 690 point deduction and be relegated, but heres the kicker when we get back in to the prem each time we start on negative 690 points so you start the season already relegated and then work the points off......

Was it floating on the top of the toilet bowl by any chance?..

 

[discopop]

Im sure cas and the pl panel would but to open the books to the sec or whatever audit team the exchange that they have decided to float on suggests a level of confidence that everything is above board although we would have opened them up to silverlake capital who have assets of 101 billion under their control so obviously we are confident anyway.

Quite simply the pl are in unchartered waters and are way out of their depth, masters is like rimmer in red dwarf in that he has managed to find himself running the whole ship when he is nothing more than a chicken soup vending machine repairman and like rimmer hes making an arse of it.

Both are smegheads

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

They didn’t conclude that, that was just a summation of the facts in the conclusion as that was never an allegation put forward by UEFA. It’s the rest of the conclusion that gives their judgment on the allegations, which was that they were not comfortably
satisfied that any disguised equity was used to fund it.

What they said about Etihad was that neither hypothesis could be fully proved.

The language CAS used throughout the documents was strong. They repeatedly stressed the "no evidence" phrase. The whole tone made it clear that they believed what City's witnesses had told them. CAS were quite dismissive of the UEFA claims. At one point they used the phrase "UEFA's theory" for some of their evidence. I felt it was close to describing UEFA's suggestions that City executives had been dishonest on such a large scale almost as a conspiracy theory. I re-read the whole report a few days ago and to be honest when you look at the pathetic state of the UEFA case it makes me even more baffled that the PL decided to carry on with this farce.

 

[mrbelfry]

It’s very much an ex tempore, in vino, statement, but here goes:

“Manchester City have carefully noted recent developments around Premier League financial regulations and share concerns about the length of time it is taking for its innocence to be demonstrated. Whilst the club voted against these regulations before they were implemented, it has complied with them since, which is why it has strenuously denied these allegations throughout this process, and has provided overwhelming evidence to support this. The club has yet to see any evidence that supports these allegations.

Manchester City have been fully cooperating in relation to these charges, and remain confident that the club will be fully exonerated around compliance with its financial obligations to the Premier League.

The club nonetheless supports the principle that the rules that govern finances within the most commercially successful sporting competition on the planet are fair, transparent and sustainable - and welcome the opportunity to work with the rest of the league to achieve that.“

Our charges aren't really the same as Everton's and Forest's and I'm not sure we did vote against some of the regulations. For example some of the Mancini charges are related to not sending his contract to the PL (presumably the allegation is that the one we sent was false otherwise it wouldn't have taken 10 years for them to notice they didn't have it). Did City vote against that regulation?

 

[meltonblue]

The language CAS used throughout the documents was strong. They repeatedly stressed the "no evidence" phrase. The whole tone made it clear that they believed what City's witnesses had told them. CAS were quite dismissive of the UEFA claims. At one point they used the phrase "UEFA's theory" for some of their evidence. I felt it was close to describing UEFA's suggestions that City executives had been dishonest on such a large scale almost as a conspiracy theory. I re-read the whole report a few days ago and to be honest when you look at the pathetic state of the UEFA case it makes me even more baffled that the PL decided to carry on with this farce.

Yes I agree. It’s worth saying they did say that Uefa were right to bring the case and we agreed with that too. Ultimately though, they had no proof outside of the leaked emails and that wasn’t anywhere near enough given what we provided in response.

With the PL, I know there were more leaked emails after CAS but the principle still remains the same. If that’s all they’ve got too, I’d be amazed tbh, although at the same time I really don’t know what else they could have.

 

[Chi-town blues]

I know what you mean but it really doesn't. My advice is to not even argue about the number of charges. Once you get into that discussion, you have fallen into the trap of discussing stupid stuff with stupid people. You will never win.

If people want to argue with you about the 115 charges, just ask them what they think they are.

If the other person happens to be a rag **** than just ask how sinking in debt is sustainable?
That’ll confuse the fuck out of their brain cells and just laugh at their mental gymnastics.

 

[Ghandi's Flip Flops]

I know what you mean but it really doesn't. My advice is to not even argue about the number of charges. Once you get into that discussion, you have fallen into the trap of discussing stupid stuff with stupid people. You will never win.

If people want to argue with you about the 115 charges, just ask them what they think they are.

You've made the assumption, I'm arguing our case with some knobhead, when I'm actually explaining to someone who is genuinely interested, what the difference is between the 3 cases.
So when they come back with reasonable questions like 'how many total charges did Everton/ Forest get?' etc, I can provide known facts rather than made up media bullshit, they're used to hearing.

 

[GortonBlue62]

I know what you mean but it really doesn't. My advice is to not even argue about the number of charges. Once you get into that discussion, you have fallen into the trap of discussing stupid stuff with stupid people. You will never win.

If people want to argue with you about the 115 charges, just ask them what they think they are.

The conversations we have with stupid people, in the pub and at work, still need to be 'won'.

It's why the information on threads like this matter.

I'd imagine there are dozens of people like me pushing back against the shite we encounter in the real world, and to a lesser degree online, with information gleaned from the two or three experts on here who know what they are talking about.