PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Damanino said:
original statement:

Manchester City FC is surprised by the issuing of these alleged breaches of the Premier League Rules, particularly given the extensive engagement and vast amount of detailed materials that the EPL has been provided with.
The Club welcomes the review of this matter by an independent Commission, to impartially consider the comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence that exists in support of its position.
As such we look forward to this matter being put to rest once and for all.

25 months after this statement its time after countless articles with assuming our guilt, various digs, attack on our fanbase and millions of rival fans calling us cheats it is time to put this to rest once and for all.
Click to expand...
Doesn't actually say we are innocent, does it?

(runs and hides)
 
This non cooperation bullshit.

The PL " right City we want to see your bent books for the Etihad sponsorship "

City " we have showed you the correct books about the Etihad sponsorship, there are no other books "

The PL "right City if you won't show us the bent books we will fine you 60 million for non cooperation "

Seems fair !
 
I know the general feeling is we will get a fine or similar slap on the wrist for " non cooperation ",but I don't think Koolhand is, rightly in my opinion, in mood to accept even this.
If,as I and most Blues believe we are proved to be innocent, then it should not be much of a stretch to then show that these charges were just a vexatious (lovely word) attempt at reputational damage by the red cartel. This in turn should lead to openings for compensation.
Every time I watch Koolhand, he exudes a calm authority, but with an underlying menace if his good name is called into question.
 
SouthStandStander said:
I binge watched it last year. Brilliant series. Cant believe i didnt watch it when it first aired.
Click to expand...

I watched it and didn't like it.

Then I went back a few years later, re-watched the first episode and was hooked straight away. Don't know where my head was that first time but it just didn't appeal.

We ended up watching 3 or 4 episodes a night until the end. Absolutely brilliant.
 
searsleftpeg said:
I know the general feeling is we will get a fine or similar slap on the wrist for " non cooperation ",but I don't think Koolhand is, rightly in my opinion, in mood to accept even this.
If,as I and most Blues believe we are proved to be innocent, then it should not be much of a stretch to then show that these charges were just a vexatious (lovely word) attempt at reputational damage by the red cartel. This in turn should lead to openings for compensation.
Every time I watch Koolhand, he exudes a calm authority, but with an underlying menace if his good name is called into question.
Click to expand...
Bankrupt the bastards!
 
searsleftpeg said:
I know the general feeling is we will get a fine or similar slap on the wrist for " non cooperation ",but I don't think Koolhand is, rightly in my opinion, in mood to accept even this.
If,as I and most Blues believe we are proved to be innocent, then it should not be much of a stretch to then show that these charges were just a vexatious (lovely word) attempt at reputational damage by the red cartel. This in turn should lead to openings for compensation.
Every time I watch Koolhand, he exudes a calm authority, but with an underlying menace if his good name is called into question.
Click to expand...

good_old_days.jpg
 
waspish said:
The 2024/25 Premier League Handbook doesn’t explicitly list “non-cooperation” as a standalone offense with a direct penalty of points deduction. However, continual non-cooperation with the Premier League could be considered Misconduct under Rule W.3, as it may involve breaching rules like Rule W.22 (failure to provide requested documents, information, or assistance). If a Disciplinary Commission finds a club guilty of such Misconduct, they have the authority under Rule W.51.4 to impose a points deduction as a sanction, depending on the severity and context of the non-cooperation.

In short: Yes, continual non-cooperation could lead to points deductions, but it would be determined case-by-case by a Commission. For details, see Section W of the handbook (pages 159–190 in the provided PDF).
Click to expand...

That's what I remember. It would be unusual, especially in view of precedent (I think) but who knows?

No-one knows what the actual allegation is when it comes to non-cooperation, of course, so it's impossible to judge, really.

I have stated before that, personally, I think the non-cooperation will be around external witnesses and evidence, for the reasons I set out at the time, and so it becomes a question of whether the panel thinks the club were required by the rules to provide the information when it suited the PL (ie the investigation) or could wait until it suited the club (ie the panel).

Anybody's guess, that one.
 
Coatigan said:
I think we might be jumping ahead of ourselves.

Let's get cleared on the bug charges first, before worrying about whether we would or wouldn't accept any little ones.
Click to expand...
There's definitely a few getting ants in their pants over yesterday's Twitter nonsense.
 
deano ou812 said:
And if we accept a fine for non cooperation the media will have a field day spinning it as see they are guilty after all..we want cleared entirely as all that leaves them with is we paid them off no guilty charge no nothing..Then please the club bring to task those who have overstepped with slanderous comments and articles..
Click to expand...
This is a very different situation to 2014. We negotiated and accepted a settlement with UEFA that wasn't particularly onerous. Yes, we could have challenged the way they dealt with the whole matter and their moving of the goalposts, but as Khaldoon said, we took the pinch and moved on. I suspect that if we'd known the way things would turn out, we'd have played hardball but we shrugged our shoulders and moved on.

But it's not a case of "accepting" anything this time. If any sanction is deemed to be appropriate the panel will decide that without reference to what we might or might not "accept". Of course we can appeal any sanction so in that sense we won't accept it.
 
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