PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Metal Biker said:
You really don't want to entertain it as a possiblity, do you.
Click to expand...
Oh I absolutely do. Would love to believe it or see something real in it.

But people jumping to claim it as proof on the back of a flippant laugh off comment are just daft. Not even speculating. Claiming it as fact ffs.

For all that remark could be, is a sarcastuc pisstake of the twitter rumours. It means or admits absolutely nothing.
 
Coatigan said:
I believe you. But there is no 'proof' available or ou there that people are referring to, or anything official that can be claimed in the way it has been, as proof we have been cleared.
Click to expand...
What are you expecting? A circular dropping into your inbox?
Wheels move behind the scenes. We are only privvy to snippets and clippets courtesy of TH and some chap that sells motors.... and that's good enough for me as a know nowt hanger-on who's not that arsed to follow things super closely, but will use the information on anyone who crosses my path who has a big gob and a full blown case of ignorance and stupidity.
As you were...
 
Coatigan said:
Oh I absolutely do. Would love to believe it or see something real in it.

But people jumping to claim it as proof on the back of a flippant laugh off comment are just daft. Not even speculating. Claiming it as fact ffs.

For all that remark could be, is a sarcastuc pisstake of the twitter rumours. It means or admits absolutely nothing.
Click to expand...
So do you have proof to the contrary or that TH is lying about the cease and desists?
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
It's been discussed many times on here. Under UK law, which the PL have to follow, there is a 6-year limitation period unless there's evidence of fraud.

It's quite possible that the IC have looked at the evidence and ruled out the possibility of fraud. That would almost certainly mean that only transactions in the 2016/17 and 2017/18 financial years could be considered. That would completely rule out the Mancini contract and the Fordham image rights stuff.

The only thing they could consider is 2 years of the Etihad sponsorship, and they're going nowhere with that.
Click to expand...
This makes it even more interesting, if it pans out that the the bulk of the breaches quoted are time barred then two questions need to be asked.
1. The investigation took 4 years to compile 115 breaches, so why were the charges not brought forward earlier?
2. If the PL genuinely believe they have a solid case that they believe in then would they be prepared to go down the route of quoting fraud?

I really hope that if the bulk of the charges are time barred that we as a club make a crystal clear statement that what we were being accused of was fraud, and it is the PL who wouldn't go down this route of investigation and not MCFC.
 
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.