Rammy Blue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 23 May 2008
- Messages
- 30,671
Agree wholeheartedly, but you said small tv station, and it isn’t.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules
- Thread starter ayrshire_blue
- Start date
eversince 76
Well-Known Member
Not in The Netherlands they’re not.They don't have reach, the bullshit headlines are reported in the UK press, nowhere else.
Outside the UK theses charges are irrelevant to the vast majority of football fans.
Manchester City FC outside the UK are treated with the respect we deserve and our football is revered.
I disagree and the fact they are based in Qatar may well you why these two seem to have a vendetta against us.Agree wholeheartedly, but you said small tv station, and it isn’t.
But they are utterly irrelevant in the big picture, file them in the same category as Jordan, Goldbridge Co.
Well I am based in South East Asia the "home" of Liverpool, yet our profile , coverage and love has never been greater, our shirt, badge and players images are all over the media.Not in The Netherlands they’re not.
The information is in the public domain. The authorities could have investigated it if they had the will. They let it pass, and I can't see them changing their mind on that issue.Wouldn't suit us for it to be heard both parties likely to be in trouble us for breaches of the Data protection act in so much that our sloppy procedure allowed personally identifiable information to be accessed.
Liverpool broke the PL rule that says they must treat other clubs in good faith. The PL applying a punishment would have no impact on a criminal case.
Wouldn't suit us for it to be heard both parties likely to be in trouble us for breaches of the Data protection act in so much that our sloppy procedure allowed personally identifiable information to be accessed.
Really? It predates GDPR and they committed a crime. I think we'd come out ahead on that one.
Anyway, the point is the PL established that 5 years ago was too long ago to investigate something, and here we are looking at things from 2009.
Yes, Liverpool committed over a hundred crimes (each breach is a seperate crime) so our civil settlement should have had no effect on the authorities‘ decision. Nor should time, as there is no time bar for all but the most minor crimes.Really? It predates GDPR and they committed a crime. I think we'd come out ahead on that one.
Anyway, the point is the PL established that 5 years ago was too long ago to investigate something, and here we are looking at things from 2009.
ganganvince
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 23 Oct 2014
- Messages
- 6,701
Data protection act 1998 covers security of data I see your point but it would be 2 seperate issues not a competition.Really? It predates GDPR and they committed a crime. I think we'd come out ahead on that one.
Anyway, the point is the PL established that 5 years ago was too long ago to investigate something, and here we are looking at things from 2009.
Last edited:
A settlement is a settlement. Done, finished and time barred anyway. And City settled for peanuts so not much of a big deal despite the noise on here.@projectriver @Prestwich_Blue
I know this is old news now, but have we ever had an explanation for why the 2013 illegal data access by Liverpool was deemed too old to investigate by the PL but several of our charges predate that and finished before 2013?
Is that likely to come up at the hearing?
At-Swim-Two-Birds
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 10 Feb 2023
- Messages
- 266
- Team supported
- City
I would have thought it was within their gift to settle the civil element not any criminal element. Either way I think that horse has bolted.A settlement is a settlement. Done, finished and time barred anyway. And City settled for peanuts so not much of a big deal despite the noise on here.