PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Going back over two days and more than 20 pages in the thread, but I liked this post when I saw it and think it raises an important but oft-overlooked point. I fully agree with your final sentence, but what most people generally haven't realised is that it would be manifestly straightforward for City to operate successfully, from the club's point of view, within the rules we're accused of breaking.

It's commonly asserted that we have access to the best and most expensive professional advice (not invariably the same thing, but the aphorism that one gets what one pays for is as true here as in any other context). Why is it so hard for people to believe that, having recourse to the services of leading professionals, we were able to find ways to circumvent the rules in question?

Now, you'll get the usual simpletons bleating risibly about the "spirit of the regulations" or other similar nonsense, in the way I believe Shaun Custis has been on Talksport this morning with reference to our recent signing of the American teenager Cavan Sullivan. However, as @Chris in London posted some time back, the "spirit of the [regulations we're accused of having breached] was to give the established G14 teams a competitive advantage at our expense [so] I frankly don't give a fuck".

This all illustrates how invidious the coverage of the entire issue has been. The Football Leaks/Der Spiegel revelations have been almost universally presented as a metaphorical smoking gun when, as many of us said at the time, they represented no such thing. They could be read in that light, but were equally consistent with a business trying to find ways to operate lawfully within the relevant rules notwithstanding that such rules had been deliberately crafted to stymie us.

A coterie of bad-faith liars have sought to drive coverage in that direction. Others, with no understanding of the business side of football, tag along, fearful of the derision that would ensue were they to gainsay the prevailing groupthink. And the result now is that we're habitually confronted by a disheartening parade of imbeciles who witlessly parrot the line about 115 charges, thinking that they're outlining a telling line of reasoning. Pathetic.
Nailed it.
 
Definitely, where I grew up in Gorton it was easily 80% blue.
where i grew up was mainly rag but looking at back that was a good thing, the amount of crap i had to put up with growing up when we were shite and they were winning everything not only makes our current success all the sweeter but means people wittering on about 115 charges is water off a ducks back.
 
Can someone please remind me as it's been a while.

1. How many emails did that hacker get access to at City?
2. How many are being presented (albeit spliced together and taken out of context) as 'evidence' against us?
 
Definitely, where I grew up in Gorton it was easily 80% blue.

I started work in 1969.

In my year the were 2 blues, me and a lad called Ian Holden, we use to go to the match together, got on the bus at Irlam O’th Heights that went to town and got on the special from Aytown street. We ended up meeting a few more blues from Salford and use to go to the games together. We were out numbered by the scum then. There are more blues around now.
where i grew up was mainly rag but looking at back that was a good thing, the amount of crap i had to put up with growing up when we were shite and they were winning everything not only makes our current success all the sweeter but means people wittering on about 115 charges is water off a ducks back.
 
Quick question (sorry if it's been covered) - the PL have accused us of providing inaccurate accounts. Does this mean the accounts posted at Companies House or just the accounts provided to the PL after making adjustments to the statutory accounts, as required by the PL?
 
Quick question (sorry if it's been covered) - the PL have accused us of providing inaccurate accounts. Does this mean the accounts posted at Companies House or just the accounts provided to the PL after making adjustments to the statutory accounts, as required by the PL?
I would have thought companies house because the PL would be able to cross check the accounts provided against that and prove guilt? I know nothing though.

But why?
 

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.