PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Exeter Blue I am here]

I know where your coming from but I want our acheivements to be admired by all, not sullied.
I want others to remember the Pep era as a great pure football acheivement and I want to look back with pride. I can't do that currently.
We lost all admiration from other fans as soon as the charges landed and we've, the club, done nothing to arrest back control of the situation since then.

Fucking hell. Five o’clock in the morning and the rags have already taken up residence………..

 

[KS55]

No but I wish there was more positive news coming out from the City camp to give the fans some hope and reassurance.

City have made it quite clear that they are innocent and have the evidence to prove it. They will not fight a case in the media but in a ‘court’. What more do you want? Khaldoon on twitter?

 

[KS55]

I know where your coming from but I want our acheivements to be admired by all, not sullied.
I want others to remember the Pep era as a great pure football acheivement and I want to look back with pride. I can't do that currently.
We lost all admiration from other fans as soon as the charges landed and we've, the club, done nothing to arrest back control of the situation since then.

Some serious psychological issues here. You can only take pride in something City have done if third parties laud it? Frankly, I take no pride in the rags winning anything and I don’t need the dippers to applaud our treble.

 

[jrb]

He said: '(broadcaster) TNT - no 12:30 discussion; referees; we don't talk about Man City - don't know why; we don't talk about financial things - don't know why; VAR'.

Compere for the evening John Bishop then questioned Klopp on what might happen should the Reds find themselves two league titles the richer should an ongoing investigation into Manchester City strip them of their crowns.

City are currently being investigated over 115 alleged charges of breaching Premier League financial rules, though the club has repeatedly and vehemently denied them.

Klopp said: 'If you organise a bus parade I'm in. How long it takes, I don't care how long.'

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

I watched AFTV this evening to catch up on the transfer rumours and I was disappointed to see AFTV banging on about the charges as that hasn't been part of the agenda of AFTV all season. That being said there were City fans on here having a dig at the Thomas Partey accusations and in both cases it's innocent until proven guilty. You can't give it out to him and then complain that other fans give it to City. Not until the proper legal process has been allowed to take course.

Re the City charges, 115 is misleading as the reality is it will boil down to a few more serious charges and a bunch of other much more trivial misdemeanours. Bear in mind the traditional top 4 sides had decades to get their shit together and spend a fortune on building their clubs so if, big IF, City are guilty, it will be of doing something to develop the club in a way that the other big sides have historically been allowed to do but now times have changed and newly-monied clubs are unable to, and City bending the rules and concealing the true nature of events leading up to City being able to invest in the club.

From what I'm reading and hearing it is likely some sort of deal gets done in the background, City get a 20 point deduction and a big fine - will mean they won't win the league that season but still qualify for CL. The hysteria that City get relegated to the National League or whatever is overkill - not in a million years will that happen and it's in the club's interests to wrap things up quickly and I'm sure the lawyers will be advising them that as for sure with 115 charges to go through some of them will stick, even though there's an element of subjectivity to them all.

Note also, contrary to some of the posts in this thread, City were NOT cleared by UEFA. They were found guilty however there is a statute of limitations that applies when going to the European CAS meaning evidence older than a specified period of time cannot be used and therefore the charges were not allowed to stick. PL rules are different and evidence can be used from any period of time which is why I think the PL will get some of them to stick. But none of the charges are as serious as the ones Juventus faced for basically match-fixing and their penalty was relegation to the next division down. So there's nothing in my mind that makes me think City won't be able to do a deal behind the scenes with a one-off points deduction and a fine.

As a Gooner I'm genuinely not bitter at all - we've historically had the opportunity to spend whatever we wanted - we chose not to (despite at the time having a corrupt Putin stooge in the form of Alisher Usmanov as a major shareholder who wanted to splash his blood money around). Other clubs like Chelsea and the Rags did get their wallets out though and now they don't like it when someone else wants to spend their money on their club. Football has always been. That way in the PL era - heck even Blackburn bought a league title. Since then more clubs have come in with the readies to compete and build the infrastructure to take the club to the next level, set up sustainable infrastructure for the future, sustain higher revenue channel opportunities and so on.

Chelsea spent dirty Russian money on building that club. Money with blood on it.

And as for the Dippers being up in arms - let's just reflect on the fact that their club is responsible for the murder of 39 Juventus fans, responsible for English teams being banned from Europe, responsible for attacks on opponents team coaches. If there ever was any justice then that club would be permanently banned from Europe and would have been relegated by the FA for giving English football a bad name in the 80s. So I'd advise them to shut the fuck up.

You (and all the other red shirts) really need to get a handle on time barring. I think there were 5 or 6 headline charges at CAS of which 3 were time barred. The biggie, which is the Etihad sponsorship deal, was not time barred and City were cleared accordingly, but even the charges that were time barred were all heard in full (just no judgment made at the end) and there was nothing in any of them to suggest we would have ‘lost’ them had such judgment been made. You can read them yourself and see, as they’re freely available.

And, if we’re found guilty by the PL tribunal, we ain’t getting away with a points deduction, cos we’ll have committed fraud and the punishment for that will be almost certainly be relegation, or even expulsion. Were the two sides to settle though, which I just can’t see happening, then I couldn’t see City accepting anything other than cosmetic punishment

 

[Revolver]

Hopefully our lawyers in charge of defending the club are still taking notes.

We don’t know if our lawyers are doing anything. In fact us City fans know nothing at all about the case.

Some claim probably correctly that its a legal matter and the club won’t comment and / or why should idiots being given publicity. Some say confidently that things will be fine but they have no evidence of this.

5788 pages on this thread suggests that city fans are concerned. Silence from the club has aided a pile on from all directions as the cartel sees an opportunity.

Our owners have transformed our club for the better. We are hated and have this hanging over us because we are successful but I think their handling of the PR aspect is awful. If god forbid we lose the case it will be no good speaking out then.

I say this not because I am concerned about what the red lackeys in the media think but the effect on City fans. This has gone on too long.

 

[Dubai Blue]

Note also, contrary to some of the posts in this thread, City were NOT cleared by UEFA. They were found guilty however there is a statute of limitations that applies when going to the European CAS meaning evidence older than a specified period of time cannot be used and therefore the charges were not allowed to stick.

When trying to come across as knowing what you're talking about it's advisable to actually know what you're talking about. You clearly don't.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

View attachment 120615

He said: '(broadcaster) TNT - no 12:30 discussion; referees; we don't talk about Man City - don't know why; we don't talk about financial things - don't know why; VAR'.

Compere for the evening John Bishop then questioned Klopp on what might happen should the Reds find themselves two league titles the richer should an ongoing investigation into Manchester City strip them of their crowns.

City are currently being investigated over 115 alleged charges of breaching Premier League financial rules, though the club has repeatedly and vehemently denied them.

Klopp said: 'If you organise a bus parade I'm in. How long it takes, I don't care how long.'

True to form right up until the end. Lol

 

[petrusha]

This is the guy who is heading up the IC not the PL lawyer.

Whilst I don’t know anything 100%, it would beyond ridiculous for someone who has reached KC, to do something like that on X for likes.

It is a journalist or it’s some kind of law student that has some inside track on one side (probably United fan given the name).

As has been already said, doesn’t mean what they have put on is not well researched or even quite convincing.

But you have only heard one side and I believe the next side will be more convincing.

With regard to your first use of convincing - the word 'specious' is your friend here. 'Convincing' is misleading for an endeavour that, while it's undoubtedly a product of consiserable toil, is underpinned by assumptions that are highly questionable at best, and is deceitfully presented as the whole story when of course it's no such thing. As you're perhaps suggesting, it's convincing only to idiots and one-eyed zealots, which regrettably is the whole point.

The below illustrates why 'specious' is the mot juste in the case at hand.

Dictionary

Definitions from Oxford Languages

specious
/ˈspiːʃəs/

adjective

superficially plausible, but actually wrong.
"a specious argument"

 

[chaddblue]

True to form right up until the end. Lol

And I bet his cultists lapped it up