PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Of course it goes beyond football. We are mostly owned by a member of the Abu Dhabi royal family. We have also come to be sponsored by companies supported by Abu Dhabi such as Etihad, Aldar, Etisalat etc. We aren't state owned no but we are certainly a related party. If we're found guilty of 'cheating' then how does that make Abu Dhabi look purely by association? These guys do not mess about with such accusations let alone actual findings.

I know the Middle Eastern airlines well and they operate exactly the same. They are world class and fantastic but one could easily argue against them on grounds of competition given not a single one of them has ever made a profit. How can an airline that must make a profit compete against one that doesn't care about profit and still puts out a better product? All they care about is having the best airline.

You'd be extremely naive to think that our owner is just willing to have his investments threatened by this and something that may potentially embarass him and Abu Dhabi. He will use every tool he can to ensure this goes his way whether that's through lawyers or political and even international pressure.

I'm not saying that we're guilty of anything by the way. You have to remember that this IS NOT a criminal process, there is no alleged criminality. All we've apparently done is broken rules that the Premer League dreamt up. This is what city will challenge and the guy with the most resources and friends always wins.

A second critical point for the league and any critics is that you'd also have to be EXTREMELY naive to think that the other clubs aren't exactly doing the same thing.
Both Etihad and Emirates airlines make a profit.
 
In this case we are being charged with breaking PL rules - rules we agreed to adhere to when we “joined” what is a private organisation. Nothing to do with “crime” and they have purposely avoided the use of the word “fraud”

We don’t have to “prove” our innocence - they have to prove we did break their rules. Our KC will be using the “irrefutable evidence” to demonstrate that we haven’t broken their rules.

If we lose - any appeal is to another independent panel.
From what I've read the belief from us is that we haven't broken any rules. We just apparently haven't complied with proving that we haven't broken them therefore by default it is assumed that we have.

A great case in point on this is the European Super League, membership is totally against the rules of UEFA and the involved clubs were supposedly going to be sanctioned.

However, how many clubs have been sanctioned or kicked out of the Champions League? Not a single one and yet the winner of the Champions League last year is the club who's still most involved in it!

Clearly rules can exist and they can charge people however enforcing them is a completely different matter.
 
Last edited:
Both Etihad and Emirates airlines make a profit.
They do now but that is only based upon what is released. They only started to release their accounts in recent years in response to US pressure on anti-competition grounds, none of them are audited properly.
 
I’m not sure from that where he’s identified any rules being broken

No, that’s kind of my point (although not sure I said it well) is that it’s the start point.

As I say it was an interesting conversation with an intelligent person who got it.

Now we make the assumption that the blanks go in our favour (as there are blanks in this none of us know) and he goes the other way.

For me it was just the first conversation I’ve had with someone who felt we where guilty who was knowledgeable and happy to discuss openly.

I had to accept some of his points as well as he accepted some of mine.

Very good chance I won’t see him again until after the verdict and I’m sure we’ll catch up on it.

It just felt strange, not having 115 being said or paying Haaland of the books, or the usual uneducated tripe.
 
From what I've read the belief from us is that we haven't broken any rules. We just apparently haven't complied with proving that we haven't broken them therefore by default it is assumed that we have.

A great case in point on this is the European Super League, membership is totally against the rules of UEFA and the involved clubs were supposedly going to be sanctioned.

However, how many clubs have been sanctioned or kicked out of the Champions League? Not a single one and yet the winner of the Champions League last year is the club who's still most involved in it!

Clearly rules can exist and they can charge people however enforcing them is a completely different matter.
Yep. It’s all a set up to stop us - because the red tops can’t stop us on the pitch. Other European leagues must be looking on in disbelief about the damage the PL are doing to their own “product”
 
No, that’s kind of my point (although not sure I said it well) is that it’s the start point.

As I say it was an interesting conversation with an intelligent person who got it.

Now we make the assumption that the blanks go in our favour (as there are blanks in this none of us know) and he goes the other way.

For me it was just the first conversation I’ve had with someone who felt we where guilty who was knowledgeable and happy to discuss openly.

I had to accept some of his points as well as he accepted some of mine.

Very good chance I won’t see him again until after the verdict and I’m sure we’ll catch up on it.

It just felt strange, not having 115 being said or paying Haaland of the books, or the usual uneducated tripe.

Should have asked him what the evidence was for him to have those views.
 

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.