PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

KS55 said:
No he doesn’t. He's forensic and won’t claim stuff he can’t prove.
Click to expand...

:) @slbsn gives his opinion on stuff he can't prove all the time. That's part of the reputation he is trying to build up, giving honest opinions based on his experience. And that is in no way a criticism.

He is also a lawyer so he is naturally cautious, nothing wrong with that although it may rub some City fans up the wrong way when they are looking for positivity.

I have learnt more about the law from the lawyers on here these last couple of years than I ever thought would be needed. Always grateful.
 
jaiguruKun said:
It was Kieran Maguire who said that the PL were taken aback by our defence - he's a much more credible source than that Patel bloke whoever he is. I hope he's right.
Click to expand...

That's interesting. I genuinely can't remember anyone saying it before.

For the sake of everyone on this thread, I don't want to make a big deal out of this, but do you remember where and when you heard that?

I think it's a really interesting and important comment if it can be validated.
 
Last edited:
halfcenturyup said:
That's interesting. I genuinely can't remember anyone saying it before.

For the sake of everyone on this thread, I don't want to make a big deal out of this, but do you remember where and when you heard that?

I think it's a really interesting and important comment if it can he validated.
Click to expand...

Im really interested what was said after that….

You’d imagine he asked why, what did City say?
 
halfcenturyup said:
That's interesting. I genuinely can't remember anyone saying it before.

For the sake of everyone on this thread, I don't want to make a big deal out of this, but do you remember where and when you heard that?

I think it's a really interesting and important comment if it can he validated.
Click to expand...

www.bbc.com

Manchester City's 115 charges: Why is the legal battle still ongoing?

BBC Sport's Ask Me Anything team explains why the legal case between Man City and the Premier League is ongoing.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com
 
jaiguruKun said:
www.bbc.com

Manchester City's 115 charges: Why is the legal battle still ongoing?

BBC Sport's Ask Me Anything team explains why the legal case between Man City and the Premier League is ongoing.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com
Click to expand...
Reading that article. If city lose it would be a disaster for the PL as clubs would want compo for lost trophy’s / league places.
City win and city will want damages so could drag on in court. Unless an undisclosed settlement is reached to compensate city. Would need the backing of all members. Future court costs v compo for city
 
halfcenturyup said:
That's interesting. I genuinely can't remember anyone saying it before.

For the sake of everyone on this thread, I don't want to make a big deal out of this, but do you remember where and when you heard that?

I think it's a really interesting and important comment if it can he validated.
Click to expand...

From BBC shitsite

The lengths City went to in their defence appear to have prolonged matters.

"The legal teams involved... I'm pretty sure the Premier League has never come up against anything like this," said Yasin Patel - barrister at Church Court Chambers.

"The team of lawyers Manchester City have assembled... call it a super team if you want.

"There's a lot riding on it for the Premier League as well as Manchester City."

There have been suggestions by the Times and football finance expert Kieran Maguire the number of charges is as high as 130.

"I think the Premier League will have been taken aback, as well as the arbitration panel really, how Manchester City have come with their defence," added Patel.

"They've been defending from right up front, attacking the Premier League in terms of their defence and making sure they've been aggressive in terms of what they've said the Premier League is wrong on."
 
A question that a journo should ask dick masters is, would you still put all those charges against a club knowing what you know now?
Something Simon Jordan said the other day, which stuck in my mind. Don’t always agree with Jordon but can’t deny he is an intelligent bloke.
He said if masters was serious about the charges. He should have picked out just the few serious ones. ‘Coming up with 115 was for effect’
I think that’s exactly what it was and clearly has other clubs pushing him into it. He is probably tell those clubs now, ‘here is the legal bill. You told me to do it’.
Almost in the next sentence, Jordan said he wasn’t happy about masters getting a huge bonus sanctioned by Gill.
 
eastlandsblue said:
From BBC shitsite

The lengths City went to in their defence appear to have prolonged matters.

"The legal teams involved... I'm pretty sure the Premier League has never come up against anything like this," said Yasin Patel - barrister at Church Court Chambers.

"The team of lawyers Manchester City have assembled... call it a super team if you want.

"There's a lot riding on it for the Premier League as well as Manchester City."

There have been suggestions by the Times and football finance expert Kieran Maguire the number of charges is as high as 130.

"I think the Premier League will have been taken aback, as well as the arbitration panel really, how Manchester City have come with their defence," added Patel.

"They've been defending from right up front, attacking the Premier League in terms of their defence and making sure they've been aggressive in terms of what they've said the Premier League is wrong on."
Click to expand...
It would also help if City had somebody who could respond to the BBC, even if it was just somebody to challenge what the journalist means by "appear to have prolonged matters" when in reality he's just made it up
 
halfcenturyup said:
:) @slbsn gives his opinion on stuff he can't prove all the time. That's part of the reputation he is trying to build up, giving honest opinions based on his experience. And that is in no way a criticism.

He is also a lawyer so he is naturally cautious, nothing wrong with that although it may rub some City fans up the wrong way when they are looking for positivity.

I have learnt more about the law from the lawyers on here these last couple of years than I ever thought would be needed. Always grateful.
Click to expand...
Yes, that’s quite different to what I said, where I was merely saying he didn’t sit on the fence. Opinion is different from factual claim. He does not, as was the claim, ‘know the truth but cannot say it.’
 
halfcenturyup said:
That's interesting. I genuinely can't remember anyone saying it before.

For the sake of everyone on this thread, I don't want to make a big deal out of this, but do you remember where and when you heard that?

I think it's a really interesting and important comment if it can be validated.
Click to expand...
How would anyone know city's defence when we don't know what evidence the prem league has to begin with.
@slbsn has said from the outset that the prem league would have to prove that city, auditing companies, royal families, governments, other independent companies were all involved in a conspiracy, he states that based on what UEFA had for similar charges, he can't see how the prem league could prove that, or at least find it very difficult, but he also stated that prem league had more access to potential evidence and insisted that no one knows what they could potentially have.

I think anyone stating no one expected city's defence is just surmising because to make that claim you would have to have been in the court, trial, arbitration room and know detail of the charges on the prem league side.

Long winded way to say bollocks.
 
Goatmeal said:
A question that a journo should ask dick masters is, would you still put all those charges against a club knowing what you know now?
Something Simon Jordan said the other day, which stuck in my mind. Don’t always agree with Jordon but can’t deny he is an intelligent bloke.
He said if masters was serious about the charges. He should have picked out just the few serious ones. ‘Coming up with 115 was for effect’
I think that’s exactly what it was and clearly has other clubs pushing him into it. He is probably tell those clubs now, ‘here is the legal bill. You told me to do it’.
Almost in the next sentence, Jordan said he wasn’t happy about masters getting a huge bonus sanctioned by Gill.
Click to expand...
Hindsight is a wonderful thing.. That “intelligent “ pillock jordan wasn’t saying anything like this when the charges were first put to us!
 
Cumbie Blue said:
www.dailymail.co.uk

Coleen Rooney revives Wagatha Christie investigator skills

Coleen Rooney has turned her famous sleuthing skills to football's biggest off-pitch controversy, starring in a new Paddy Power sketch that sees her investigating Manchester City's FFP case.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk

www.bbc.co.uk

Paddy Power and Betfair users warned of 'email danger' after hack

Hackers have accessed personal information of potentially 800,000 customers of Flutter Entertainment.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk

Massive data hack of customer info? Start of the new season? Best dip into the advertising budget and buy some good PR.
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting that you know who did it? They do have history for it, to be fair.
 
eastlandsblue said:
From BBC shitsite

The lengths City went to in their defence appear to have prolonged matters.

"The legal teams involved... I'm pretty sure the Premier League has never come up against anything like this," said Yasin Patel - barrister at Church Court Chambers.

"The team of lawyers Manchester City have assembled... call it a super team if you want.

"There's a lot riding on it for the Premier League as well as Manchester City."

There have been suggestions by the Times and football finance expert Kieran Maguire the number of charges is as high as 130.

"I think the Premier League will have been taken aback, as well as the arbitration panel really, how Manchester City have come with their defence," added Patel.

"They've been defending from right up front, attacking the Premier League in terms of their defence and making sure they've been aggressive in terms of what they've said the Premier League is wrong on."
Click to expand...

If only there was a proper media….

BBC “what do you mean Kieron, what did City do at the ATP hearing?”
KM “Well City argued & proved that the Premier League had unlawful rules, & had treated City unfairly & unreasonably.”
BBC “but didn’t City say they’d do that at the time of voting in unlawful rules?”
KM “errr yes.”
BBC “yet the premier league were taken aback by it.”
 
Goatmeal said:
A question that a journo should ask dick masters is, would you still put all those charges against a club knowing what you know now?
Something Simon Jordan said the other day, which stuck in my mind. Don’t always agree with Jordon but can’t deny he is an intelligent bloke.
He said if masters was serious about the charges. He should have picked out just the few serious ones. ‘Coming up with 115 was for effect’
I think that’s exactly what it was and clearly has other clubs pushing him into it. He is probably tell those clubs now, ‘here is the legal bill. You told me to do it’.
Almost in the next sentence, Jordan said he wasn’t happy about masters getting a huge bonus sanctioned by Gill.
Click to expand...
I’ve been saying the same since day one “ if you have that magic bullet, why surround it with dummies “ They want to sensationalise the whole case and for every man and his dog to say “ they must be guilty “ It was all organised by the cartel, to steer future sponsors away from the club.
Now it’s going into millions for each club, they’re all crying it’s taking to long. And if they think we’re guilty “ why worry about the cost “
 
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