PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Rory Bluelow said:
He’s an experienced Senior Executive acting in a Non-Exec Director capacity giving an interview to the London Times. If I’m recalling correctly, he is close to and trusted by Khaldoon himself. I think you’re doing him huge disservice suggesting he’d make an overtly positive statement based on tittle-tattle from “colleagues”. In terms of Corporate Governance, CFG could have a “Risk Committee” looking at the case and receiving reports; it’s perfectly feasible for a Non-Exec to be involved.
With this particular matter, whenever a silver lining appears, you do seem desperate to find a cloud !
Click to expand...
Why waste your breath? You're responding to a walking agenda...
 
JewelZee said:
Why waste your breath? You're responding to a walking agenda...
Click to expand...
I think you’re right, he’s determined to piss on any suggestion of things that may be positive. And he’s a fully paid-up member of the PL Counsel’s fan club - the greatest Sporting Advocate on the planet…Pannick &Co May as well give up now.
What he says about Board meetings is just bollocks - detailed, on-going review of this dispute will handled by a small sub-group probably reporting directly to Khaldoon !
I’m ignoring him in future.
 
theres only one carlito said:
I remember reading it at the time and it stood out as strange way to put it. However it could just be a mistake in phrasing and nothing else. He’s under pressure masters from all corners. I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s just an ill thought out response.
Click to expand...
But the Chief Exec of a billion pound industry should not be in that position if he gives out ill thought out responses.
 
ancoats said:
It does not matter if the damage was little, The crime itself was done to benefit Liverpool FC,
Why does Liverpool always dodge the bullet, Manchester City should have taken them to the cleaners, Because if the shoe was on the other foot mark my words Manchester City would be Punished heavily and even relegation would have fitted the crime
Click to expand...
It does when you’re quantifying how much compensation the dippers needed to pay. They clearly were guilty as they paid Compo. So why £1m as opposed to £1 or £100m?
 
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.