PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

The PL are hardly likely to say "Well actually, we've fucked up here and are trying to find a mutually acceptable way out" are they?

No more than City were ever likely to say "Despite all our protestations of innocence, we are bunch of lying cheats".

I've no doubt that the official line is that the hearing will still go ahead later this year. But I'm also in little doubt that the balance has significantly shifted in City's favour.
So all being well,it’ll just be non cooperation that they’ll have us on ?
 
Ziegler backed that rogue video last summer without checking its provenance and without checking the facts. What he described as a new story had appeared in the Grauniad some time before and had been debunked. The £100m was the Etisalat sponsorship, and the mystery man was a known loan broker. The ’new scandal’ had been discussed at CAS. Not much of the story left after that. Not reliable at all Mr. Ziegler.
Correct, Ziegler's been corrected numerous times by blues on Twitter.
Instead of apologising he just doubles-down.
 
Ornstein and Ziegler who are the two most reliable main stream journos on these topics ( and goto for the PL with leaks ) have both stated this weekend there has been no change - and hearing will be held in the Autumn.
They are probably right the hearing is scheduled for Autumn and at this point in time it will be held then. But there will be pre hearing discussions and if the PL are told their evidence is as flimsy as the evidence at CAS and they have little hope of success, then discussions will be held regarding cancelling the hearing and getting a withdrawal agreement. The PL are not going to brief journalists to print that it is a lost cause and they are stuffed. They are going to remain bullish in the hope they can get the best withdrawal agreement. If these two journalists can predict what will happen in the Autumn ask them for winning future lottery numbers. They are either paid to print someone's line or guessing, like most of us.
 
Has he ever had to back anything up before? He just gives an emotional, reactionary performance to whatever is happening.

He’s got an easy way out of this by saying his lawyers have advised him that he can’t show the letter, but that he could read out portions of it. This gives him the chance to write his own letter and as no one else is saying they’ve received one, no one can 100% verify its veracity.
Has he ever made such a specific statement of intent before? Especially in relation to this subject matter?

Think the reading out of a fictional letter would be skating on very thin ice. Like I said before, the **** is lots of things but daft isn’t of them. Plus, he will unquestionably be legally advised and no lawyer of any competence or repute, would advise reading a fictional letter out purported to be from an organisation with the resources of City.

You appear to be only able to see as far as the fictional character without stepping back and seeing the associated commercial operation and the considered decision making that lies behind that. He will not play fast and loose with what he has built up for himself, which such a course of conduct would surely do.
 
Has he ever made such a specific statement of intent before? Especially in relation to this subject matter?

Think the reading out of a fictional letter would be skating on very thin ice. Like I said before, the **** is lots of things but daft isn’t of them. Plus, he will unquestionably be legally advised and no lawyer of any competence or repute, would advise reading a fictional letter out purported to be from an organisation with the resources of City.

You appear to be only able to see as far as the fictional character without stepping back and seeing the commercial operation and the considered decision making that lies behind that. He will not play fast and loose with what he has built up for himself, which such a course of conduct would surely do.
Yeah, maybe, but he’s a slick enough operator to elude just enough to satisfy his audience without breaking any libel laws.

This all assumes that letters have been sent out. If they haven’t, he can pretty much read anything he likes out.
 
Try reading the posts
Oh I did mate - all of them

You are 'technically' correct - So what?

Just could not understand your need to be so fucking OTT pedantic about it

It a forum for CITY fans to chat stuff FFS

As someone else said - why could you simply not just be you and let others be themselves - rather than bang on and on about how we all have think the same as you
 
So all being well,it’ll just be non cooperation that they’ll have us on ?
This case is, I think, different from the UEFA one in that regard. There was a court hearing about the arbitration issue, plus the discovery process and to what extent we were obliged to disclose documents.

I can't imagine we wouldn't comply with a High Court ruling, so non-cooperation might not be an issue this time. Time will tell though.
 
Conn hasn't commented about the PL charges at all since the CAS verdict. I'd say that wasn't coincidence. Although why we haven't gone after racist Ronay I've no idea.
It's certainly interesting to think about who the club have gone after legally.

In Winterbach's case, he was still trying to intimate he had evidence of our guilt shortly after the CAS verdict.

With Ronay, I suspect the club are playing the long game. Perceptions and the optics of a narrative can shift over time. Ronay's ouput will probably be viewed as the ramblings of a vitriolic racist when all of this has settled. Content like "rows of grinning beards" will not age well.

Sometimes, it's probably better to give people enough rope...
 

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.