PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[sky tot]

I was happy and optimistic last week after Tolmie’s tweets . Now I’m slightly depressed …Be so glad when it’s all over

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

I was happy and optimistic last week after Tolmie’s tweets . Now I’m slightly depressed …Be so glad when it’s all over

Don't be.

Those emails have been available for years.

It's a desperate dump from someone who should have taken it to the toilet instead.

It's Nick Harris.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

I was happy and optimistic last week after Tolmie’s tweets . Now I’m slightly depressed …Be so glad when it’s all over

Depressed because an anonymous internet troll looking for clicks says or implies he knows something, when the rest of the mainstream media don't have an more of the idea than the rest of us.

 

[spinney]

So who do we think this Magic Hat fella is? Never heard a peep from him before and then suddenly he’s all over Twitter acting like he’s advisor to the Premier League. I’ve blocked him cos he’s fucking boring but can’t help thinking he’s not entirely ‘unsponsored’.

Same with wyess

The ones I saw about the funding are definitely not new.
So coming from a deceitful starting point.
You do have to wonder why someone would write deceitfully at such length .Could be clicks or else somebody is making it worth his while.

Just like wyness pops up once a week with a negative city story

 

[waspish]

I really am hoping that De Spiegal (or whatever they are called) have a load of other hacked emails to throw at us, i'd hate to think that we get cleared from this investigation and that's the end of it. I love a good trilogy.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

Don't be.

Those emails have been available for years.

It's a desperate dump from someone who should have taken it to the toilet instead.

It's Nick Harris.

Christ, what a sad life some people lead.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

That was just a sample. There were many more but the implications of them all were a bit over my head. Too many to post but if your on Twitter here’s a link
@themagic_tophat
https://twitter.com/themagic_tophat

In 2012/13, we thought we needed a specific bottom line maximum loss in order to be able to invoke the Annex XI provision to take advantage of pre-June 2010 wages. That's why we accelerated the Etihad payments and did the Fordham deal. In the end, UEFA shifting the goalposts on the application of those wages rendered these actions irrelevant but we didn't know that at the time.

There's absolutely nothing either new of remotely fraudulent in those actions. And if the IC agree it's not fraudulent, then they'll be time-barred anyway.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

The ones I saw about the funding are definitely not new.
So coming from a deceitful starting point.
You do have to wonder why someone would write deceitfully at such length .Could be clicks or else somebody is making it worth his while.

The smear campaign against City has been relentless for ten years and to use Khaldoon's words: "Organised and clear."
Khaldoon is a man of few words and he chooses them very carefully. There is no reason to doubt what he said.

 

[ayrshire_blue]

No. Read @Bez at #57,586 post above.

I have, and I completely understand the principle of just because people state their intentions via email it doesn't mean they were necessarily carried out. I'm comfortable with that.

I'm specifically referring to the emails where club employees, again via email, suggest the actions have already been carried out. Not plans to carry them out, not suggestions or intentions, but referring to have actually previously done them.

Of course, what they could be admitting to having previously done might be nothing illegal at all, but that's sort of the basis of my question.

 

[KS55]

I have, and I completely understand the principle of just because people state their intentions via email it doesn't mean they were necessarily carried out. I'm comfortable with that.

I'm specifically referring to the emails where club employees, again via email, suggest the actions have already been carried out. Not plans to carry them out, not suggestions or intentions, but referring to have actually previously done them.

Of course, what they could be admitting to having previously done might be nothing illegal at all, but that's sort of the basis of my question.

There still has to be corroboration of the statement ‘like we did before’ ie is there evidence that we actually did whatever it was before?