PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[bridgeno1]

Problem is, this assumes guilt & you haven’t suggested how the PL can prove it because you don’t understand the charges fully.
What happens to this PL “business” if we are totally exonerated of all allegations? Does it go bust? Your theory becomes unworkable.

It doesn't assume guilt at all. It assumes both parties wanting to end the process quickly and cutting a deal to do so.

 

[Cityfan1977]

There’s no point in “counter-arguing” stupidity, that’s a never-ending job.

If we are found not guilty I would like Pep or someone from the club blasts what Klopp has said about this case and the UEFA one " this is bad day for football". was discrase comment after we where found not guilty st CAS

 

[Bluemanc100]

It doesn't assume guilt at all. It assumes both parties wanting to end the process quickly and cutting a deal to do so.

So to cut a deal we’d accept a 20 point deduction when we’re innocent leading to everybody assuming we were guilty all along…

Alrighty then

 

[CC1]

It doesn't assume guilt at all. It assumes both parties wanting to end the process quickly and cutting a deal to do so.

But we wouldn’t want to do that as we have irrefutable evidence of our innocence & so far the PL have been unable to provide evidence to support their ALLEGATIONS. The onus is on the PL to prove us guilty not us to prove our innocence Why would we settle
Clearly you have not looked at our clubs stance

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

Completely out of your depth. If I was you I'd fuck off sharpish. Embarrassing yourself.

Thats what I think. Comes here extending hand of friendship to what he thinks is a fanbase that are disillusioned to the fact we are guilty. His assumption of guilt is based on the shit he reads on twitter and in the media, whilst being an Arsenal fan! wtf

I guess now he will run back to his own fanbase forums and tell everyone how unhinged City fans are. I cant be arsed with them.

 

[cheekybids]

Ok I'll explain why I think 20 points is a likely outcome. It's a penalty that is severe enough to be significant (and outweigh the penalties given to Forest and Everton, meaning fans of other clubs can shut up about City not having to take their medicine) whilst simultaneously not actually affecting City that much as with a 20 point deduction they are likely to still qualify for the CL etc.

My hypothesis is based on how businesses operate. Also regarding guilt or otherwise - there are shades of grey always when it comes to legal proceedings and even if you know you are totally innocent there's always the fear that the court/jury etc don't see it that way - maybe the opposition lawyer spins a great story, maybe there's inherent bias on the part of the jury etc.

Which is why I think they won't want to risk it. They'll take a penalty 'in the interests of putting the matter to bed' whilst simultaneously maintaining innocence and stating dissatisfaction with the whole process, both sides move on, and in a couple of years the City fans sit back with popcorn watching Chelsea get bent over a desk by the PL before they go in dry.

All opinion, probably worth fuck all, I've absolutely zero inside info etc.

So it wasn’t a rumour you just made up the 20 point penalty based on your years of twitter law….

 

[East Level 2]

It doesn't assume guilt at all. It assumes both parties wanting to end the process quickly and cutting a deal to do so.

The PL could easily cut a deal: Case dismissed and a statement saying they will no longer be run for the benefit of a bunch of cry-baby, red-shirt shites.

 

[Centurions]

It doesn't assume guilt at all. It assumes both parties wanting to end the process quickly and cutting a deal to do so.

Except that City have indicated and publicly stated previously that "we'll take the pinch this time, but never again". You know what they say about making assumptions, yes?

 

[mancboy]

Ok I'll explain why I think 20 points is a likely outcome. It's a penalty that is severe enough to be significant (and outweigh the penalties given to Forest and Everton, meaning fans of other clubs can shut up about City not having to take their medicine) whilst simultaneously not actually affecting City that much as with a 20 point deduction they are likely to still qualify for the CL etc.

My hypothesis is based on how businesses operate. Also regarding guilt or otherwise - there are shades of grey always when it comes to legal proceedings and even if you know you are totally innocent there's always the fear that the court/jury etc don't see it that way - maybe the opposition lawyer spins a great story, maybe there's inherent bias on the part of the jury etc.

Which is why I think they won't want to risk it. They'll take a penalty 'in the interests of putting the matter to bed' whilst simultaneously maintaining innocence and stating dissatisfaction with the whole process, both sides move on, and in a couple of years the City fans sit back with popcorn watching Chelsea get bent over a desk by the PL before they go in dry.

All opinion, probably worth fuck all, I've absolutely zero inside info etc.

This is where you are wrong, stories dont matter here, figures are finite and prove one way or the other who is right and who is wrong and basically what the pl is saying that everybody is lying except for them which in legal terms is the most ridiculous defence i have ever heard and will rightfully get laughed.

Our chairman has already said we wont take any kind of punishment this time and this is why it has got to where it has if there was a deal to be made it wouldnt have got to the IC stage , in legal terminology we have basically said lets see what you've got, you've made your accusations lets see you back them up, this is where people are getting it twisted, the pl have made accusations it is up to them to prove our guilt not for us to prove our innocence.

 

[Gazza]

Ok I'll explain why I think 20 points is a likely outcome. It's a penalty that is severe enough to be significant (and outweigh the penalties given to Forest and Everton, meaning fans of other clubs can shut up about City not having to take their medicine) whilst simultaneously not actually affecting City that much as with a 20 point deduction they are likely to still qualify for the CL etc.

My hypothesis is based on how businesses operate. Also regarding guilt or otherwise - there are shades of grey always when it comes to legal proceedings and even if you know you are totally innocent there's always the fear that the court/jury etc don't see it that way - maybe the opposition lawyer spins a great story, maybe there's inherent bias on the part of the jury etc.

Which is why I think they won't want to risk it. They'll take a penalty 'in the interests of putting the matter to bed' whilst simultaneously maintaining innocence and stating dissatisfaction with the whole process, both sides move on, and in a couple of years the City fans sit back with popcorn watching Chelsea get bent over a desk by the PL before they go in dry.

All opinion, probably worth fuck all, I've absolutely zero inside info etc.

You assume a 20 point deduction & you also assume that we could make that back up and still qualify for the CL, what you've not allowed for in this assumption is how the manager & players will take the punishment after being lied to about our innocence.