PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[eastmanc]

That’s the point… won’t three PL appointed judges vote with the PL just as the UEFA judge did regardless of the facts. Hardly instils confidence in the legal profession the way the UEFA judge behaved.

Of course they will, but don't forget the burden of proof is on the Premier League, the panel have to deal with the evidence and have to be independent. It doesn't matter if one of the panel is an Arsenal fan he has to do his job properly.

 

[cheekybids]

Sometimes a joke is just a joke.

One way of looking at it but I think it’s snide.

 

[eastmanc]

Sometimes a joke is just a joke.

No he is snide. He knew what he was doing.

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

Of course they will, but don't forget the burden of proof is on the Premier League, the panel have to deal with the evidence and have to be independent. It doesn't matter if one of the panel is an Arsenal fan he has to do his job properly.

Mmmmmm!

The PL have invested too much, aided 'n abetted by the RDAHMeedya, not to get some return. They will do their utmost to put a points millstone round the club's neck to prevent a fifth title.

 

[eastmanc]

Mmmmmm!

The PL have invested too much, aided 'n abetted by the RDAHMeedya, not to get some return. They will do their utmost to put a points millstone round the club's neck to prevent a fifth title.

It is not worth their jobs and reputations if their verdict on this case was not seen as impartial. The evidence is the evidence and if the Premier league can't prove their allegations then they will have to find in City's favour.

 

[give it to gordon]

It is not worth their jobs and reputations if their verdict on this case was not seen as impartial.

Who's going to say it's not impartial ?

Press/media won't as we are guilty in their eyes.
Rivals fans won't as we are guilty in their eyes.
The PL won't as we are guilty in their eyes.
City will say it wasn't impartial because City are guilty !

 

[halfcenturyup]

Sometimes a joke is just a joke.

And Maguire is becoming one. I lost faith in him when he said he had received and reviewed the APT documentation from "someone in the press" on a podcast by then @slbsn said he had told him he didn't have it. Either he was doing a Goldbridge or he realised he erred in mentioning it. Probably the latter. Either way, it's a good way to lose trust.

They all do it, if course. Say things to stay relevant in social media. They have to care about stuff like that if they want to make a career out there. You can add financial "experts" to journalists as clickbait merchants. Shame, really.

 

[mancboy]

And Maguire is becoming one. I lost faith in him when he said he had received and reviewed the APT documentation from "someone in the press" on a podcast by then @slbsn said he had told him he didn't have it. Either he was doing a Goldbridge or he realised he erred in mentioning it. Probably the latter. Either way, it's a good way to lose trust.

They all do it, if course. Say things to stay relevant in social media. They have to care about stuff like that if they want to make a career out there. You can add financial "experts" to journalists as clickbait merchants. Shame, really.

Its almost as if those who purport themselves as experts in something on social media arent true experts and all about saying what people want to hear while the true experts are too busy making money to be bothered with shilling on social media for cheap likes

 

[Milesvk]

Just to keep piss boiling abit more whilst 'discussing' the charges with rival fans on social media. Keep reminding them there are actually more than 115 charges (according to @slbsn ) possibly in the region of 130 ish.
just means the domino effect will be bigger as each of the main content of the charges are found with no evidence or time barred.

 

[Oldham Exile]

It is not worth their jobs and reputations if their verdict on this case was not seen as impartial. The evidence is the evidence and if the Premier league can't prove their allegations then they will have to find in City's favour.

That is your opinion and I respect it and I want to agree, but.....

The only evidence we have to draw on is that the same 'calibre' of person in a very similar situation judged against CITY at CAS - simply because he was 'toeing the line'