PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

I think the paper leaked to the Times is just a background briefing setting out the reasons we are taking action and does not include the particulars of claim. The Times did not spot that the claim is likely to (centre on the amendments to the rule and) go no further than the rule itself.
City voted in favour of the principle of associated being included in the PSR rules but we were nonplussed by the details when they came out and livid at the amendments post Newcastle.

Lawton was quite specific that the arbitrators had given the PL permission in a directions hearing on February 26 to send a redacted copy of the club's claim to other clubs. I am guessing a 165 page document is the full claim and not just a background briefing?

Where did you find that City had voted in favour of "associated"? Was that before 2021? As far as I can remember, City abstained in 2021 and voted against in 2024? But I may have misremembered. I am getting old ....
 
I was talking, well trying to understand, a slurring Arsenal fan in a pub on the Friday night just outside wembley, he had come outside for a fag, was wearing shorts and had something really manky looking wrong with a leg, pot bellied, balding, fat face… somehow got onto the subject of age… he was 50… he thought I was a ‘young lad, so probably only supported city since 2008, ha ha’, asked mine, and you could see his face draining as I said I was 55.
If I may offer this advice, next time point to his manky leg, his pot belly, his puce face or whatever it is and point out that his bitterness is taking its toll on his own health
 
Lawton was quite specific that the arbitrators had given the PL permission in a directions hearing on February 26 to send a redacted copy of the club's claim to other clubs. I am guessing a 165 page document is the full claim and not just a background briefing?

Where did you find that City had voted in favour of "associated"? Was that before 2021? As far as I can remember, City abstained in 2021 and voted against in 2024? But I may have misremembered. I am getting old ....
There were three votes: 1) in principle 2) Detailed rules 3) Amended rules.
As I understand it, we voted 1)Yes 2) Abstain. Keep a watching brief on something we think is not lawful 3) ? Don’t know but we started proceedings.
The source for our vote 1) Yes is Stefan.
The document leaked to the Times was background only I believe, as Lawton did not say what our action cited. Also Stefan mentioned recently that K.Maguire said he had not seen our basis of claim even though he had seen the paper.
 
Question, BDO LLP audit City’s accounts. If they believe that City had knowingly misled them for well over a decade would they continue to audit the accounts and work with City as a client 5 years after the Der Spiegal articles were produced, were charged by Uefa and then exonerated by CAS and then for well over a year since the 115 charges were laid out by the Premier League?
Just as long as we keep up with the 'brown envelopes' there'll be no problem.....
;- )
 
If I may offer this advice, next time point to his manky leg, his pot belly, his puce face or whatever it is and point out that his bitterness is taking its toll on his own health
I didn’t feel it was my place to point those out, though I did raise the dodgy promotion from 6th (or 5th) back in the 20’s and the blood diamond investment of fiszman (sp), to which he had no idea about.
 
Scruffy Jim not on board with the PL here...


He's clearly not a football fan is he, you know, he mentions the Premiership, you know, not the Premier League and it's 15 years old, you know, and Nice almost made the European, European ... err, you know ... Cup.

But the worst thing was when he tried to put on a Northern accent.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.