No chance.
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
(four of their top ten sponsors are linked to the UAE, including the stadium and shirt sponsor Etihad)
So that means the majority of the club’s main sponsors aren’t linked to the UAE.
Therefore, if these non-UAE sponsorships are in line with the UAE-linked sponsors then they must be fair value/legitimate.
Syed has clearly started writing the article thinking “I’ll include the fact all City’s sponsors are UAE linked, ha ha ha, gotcha!”
He’s then looked at the data and it hasn’t told him what he wanted it to. Yet he’s forged on ahead with that angle regardless, which is just the height of laziness.
if you’re going to have a pop at discrediting the club at the least put a bit effort in.
A lamentable article, but unsurprising given it’s been written by a failed table tennis player.
Shows exactly how he wants to portray things doesn't it.
Alternatively, he could say, "if you ignore the main stadium/shirt sponsor Etihad, 6 of the next 9 biggest sponsors are not from the UAE."
That would read a bit different though, wouldn't it.
MSIAC (that's not Martin Samuels, just to be clear)
Rory Bluelow
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 4 May 2014
- Messages
- 2,175
There’s an old but very true mantra….At the risk of outing myself as thick as fuck, I struggle with the notion that preposterous charges have been brought by the EPL who must have sought the advice of competent lawyers before they did so. Genuine question to you - do you believe the EPL lawyers are thick as fuck also, or is it the case that the charges were issued by the EPL against legal advice?
For what it’s worth I trust Khaldoon‘s irrefutable evidence statement but as I say it seems virtually unthinkable that any responsible organisation would issue proceedings of such magnitude knowing such proceedings were doomed to fail
Advisers advise; Executives decide
Lawyers (even the very best) are only Advisers.
You have a point, provided the only motive was to win the dispute - I think an ancillary motive was simply to damage our club. Masters and his handlers (Levy & Co) probably thought it was a clever win-win strategy, but I think they’ve lost control. The PL will provide the fall guys of course and Masters’ head will roll.
Surely they have the right or they wouldnt have charged us with non - co operation..
It's basically been:
Them: "give us all your documents"
Us: "which ones? You don't need them all"
Them: "you aren't co-operating!"
Us: "we're trying to"
Not sure where I saw it but Stefan was calling Goldbrudges bluff re: letters sent out.When was that mate I must've missed it?
He said at that time the club had sent no letters.
Some may have been sent out since then, mind you,
NorCalBlue
Well-Known Member
Magically, City pay their staff decent wages instead of being cheapskates who fuck over their employees. The guy must love Walmart - they employ vast numbers of people on shit money as well."Magically...City have a wage bill of £423million and 520 employees compared with Liverpool’s wage bill of £373million and 1,005 employees"
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
If a few were sent out to a small of particular targets how would that impact on the wider media?I think it’s pretty clear the letters weren’t sent. The coverage has been worse since weekend.
The coverage after an another title win was inevitable from some quarters.
Just because coverage is negative it doesn’t make it defamatory.
Inter Me Nan
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 2 Aug 2012
- Messages
- 10,527
Cheers.Not sure where I saw it but Stefan was calling Goldbrudges bluff re: letters sent out.
He said at that time the club had sent no letters.
Some may have been sent out since then, mind you,
City Hobgoblin
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 22 Feb 2014
- Messages
- 4,273
Who does he support?(four of their top ten sponsors are linked to the UAE, including the stadium and shirt sponsor Etihad)
So that means the majority of the club’s main sponsors aren’t linked to the UAE.
Therefore, if these non-UAE sponsorships are in line with the UAE-linked sponsors then they must be fair value/legitimate.
Syed has clearly started writing the article thinking “I’ll include the fact all City’s sponsors are UAE linked, ha ha ha, gotcha!”
He’s then looked at the data and it hasn’t told him what he wanted it to. Yet he’s forged on ahead with that angle regardless, which is just the height of laziness.
if you’re going to have a pop at discrediting the club at the least put a bit effort in.
A lamentable article, but unsurprising given it’s been written by a failed table tennis player.
metalblue
Well-Known Member
Surely they have the right or they wouldnt have charged us with non - co operation..
Depends mate, both your points can be true.
For example, maybe the rules state something along the lines that members will cooperate fully with any investigation
They then ask you for something that might find you running the risk of GDPR breaches.
You say not having that, they say but if you don’t give it to us you’re not cooperating. You (reasonably) decide it’s better to breach a club rule and the run risk of breaching the law. Won’t be that black and white, but you get the point.