Ducado
Well-Known Member
They changed the rules it's quite simple really, the club say they complied with the rules as they stood, and you can not retrogressively charge people for breaking a rule or law that did not exist at the time
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
Typical City.We all remember when we were shit and a good season was avoiding relegation and getting a result against the rags or even scoring a goal at home.
Now we are the best team on the planet setting new records no one before us has ever achieved and the icing on the cake will be for City to be found not guilty of any allegations by the Premier League and for Khaldoon to destroy the bastards that have tried to destroy us.
I can’t believe we are so fucking good when not so long ago we were so fucking shit.
Associated sponsors?“I have never seen a bunch of people more confident that they have nothing to answer for than Manchester City,” one former Premier League chief executive tells The Athletic.
“Their argument is that there are things they have done that would be wrong under the present rules,” adds the former chief executive. “But under the rules at the time and the way they submitted the information, they believe, was all above board”.
“They may get sanctioned because they didn’t account for something properly, but they are confident that when it comes to the big things, which they feel would be wrong in today’s market but fine under a different set of rules as they were back then, they won’t get sanctioned.”
“There are probably four outcomes; they’re acquitted, there’s a huge fine and small points deduction, there’s a huge points deduction or they’re kicked out of the league. But we just don’t know without seeing the in-depth evidence. And just because someone has been charged 115 times, it doesn’t mean they’re guilty.”
Interesting article in the Athletic (behind paywall). Does anyone have clues about what it means by present rules or a different set of rules in bold?
Toranaga sama
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 23 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 196
Curious to know which set of rules they changed to hamstrung us.They changed the rules it's quite simple really, the club say they complied with the rules as they stood, and you can not retrogressively charge people for breaking a rule or law that did not exist at the time
Exactly - it's like changing the speed limit on a road to 20mph, then fining people for driving above that limit 10yrs ago!They changed the rules it's quite simple really, the club say they complied with the rules as they stood, and you can not retrogressively charge people for breaking a rule or law that did not exist at the time
Prophet of Doom
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2007
- Messages
- 1,586
This is interesting although it did make me laugh the quote about potential outcomes - which basically covers every possibility !“I have never seen a bunch of people more confident that they have nothing to answer for than Manchester City,” one former Premier League chief executive tells The Athletic.
“Their argument is that there are things they have done that would be wrong under the present rules,” adds the former chief executive. “But under the rules at the time and the way they submitted the information, they believe, was all above board”.
“They may get sanctioned because they didn’t account for something properly, but they are confident that when it comes to the big things, which they feel would be wrong in today’s market but fine under a different set of rules as they were back then, they won’t get sanctioned.”
“There are probably four outcomes; they’re acquitted, there’s a huge fine and small points deduction, there’s a huge points deduction or they’re kicked out of the league. But we just don’t know without seeing the in-depth evidence. And just because someone has been charged 115 times, it doesn’t mean they’re guilty.”
Interesting article in the Athletic (behind paywall). Does anyone have clues about what it means by present rules or a different set of rules in bold?
Still a bit concerned that almost every journo out there thinks the case will be heard in the Autumn - or October as seems to be the chosen month.
Not a sniff anywhere else that it’s looking more like the Summer resolution other than from out ITKs.
“I have never seen a bunch of people more confident that they have nothing to answer for than Manchester City,” one former Premier League chief executive tells The Athletic.
“Their argument is that there are things they have done that would be wrong under the present rules,” adds the former chief executive. “But under the rules at the time and the way they submitted the information, they believe, was all above board”.
“They may get sanctioned because they didn’t account for something properly, but they are confident that when it comes to the big things, which they feel would be wrong in today’s market but fine under a different set of rules as they were back then, they won’t get sanctioned.”
“There are probably four outcomes; they’re acquitted, there’s a huge fine and small points deduction, there’s a huge points deduction or they’re kicked out of the league. But we just don’t know without seeing the in-depth evidence. And just because someone has been charged 115 times, it doesn’t mean they’re guilty.”
Interesting article in the Athletic (behind paywall). Does anyone have clues about what it means by present rules or a different set of rules in bold?
Not arsed about what the article says - other than, why is the former Chief Executive coming out with this, surely this should be confidential till the case is heard/resolved... Surely City have a strong case that all these leaks have influenced opinon and damaged our reputation?!
Bluewonder
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 24 Jun 2013
- Messages
- 3,485
To be frank, I think this is missing the point.“I have never seen a bunch of people more confident that they have nothing to answer for than Manchester City,” one former Premier League chief executive tells The Athletic.
“Their argument is that there are things they have done that would be wrong under the present rules,” adds the former chief executive. “But under the rules at the time and the way they submitted the information, they believe, was all above board”.
“They may get sanctioned because they didn’t account for something properly, but they are confident that when it comes to the big things, which they feel would be wrong in today’s market but fine under a different set of rules as they were back then, they won’t get sanctioned.”
“There are probably four outcomes; they’re acquitted, there’s a huge fine and small points deduction, there’s a huge points deduction or they’re kicked out of the league. But we just don’t know without seeing the in-depth evidence. And just because someone has been charged 115 times, it doesn’t mean they’re guilty.”
Interesting article in the Athletic (behind paywall). Does anyone have clues about what it means by present rules or a different set of rules in bold?
Ultimately, the PL has accused the club of accounting fraud, and their evidence will have to be cogent and extensive to prove that.
manimanc
Well-Known Member
Ha ha has he?Tbf, he has said he isn't a City fan. Chelsea isn't it?
Don't I look like a prize prick.
Fuck him anyway, he's a cock.
cheekybids
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 10,574
I thought this was quite balanced. gave a lot of credit to the team and when fans called in whinging we just bought our success the host pointed out that it was the same as it ever was.
One fan (derby?) got laughed at for trying to compare city to the post office in using lawyers to defend ourselves, if innocent it wouldn’t be needed! how dare we!
Has he considered it is like the post office. Convincing themselves that they weren’t at fault & assuming guilt without evidence of wrongdoing.