PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Out of interest I wandered over to the red cafe to view their thread on this subject, christ alive how fucking stupid these cunts are. Supposedly based on the fact our state owners previously killed a journalist ( Saudi not Abu Dhabi) and murdered hundreds of people building our world cup stadiums ( Qatar not Abu Dhabi), we are going to win the case as there is also evidence we are physically intimidating anyone who is involved in investigation of us for this case and we will get off as they are in fear of their lives if they find us guilty.
 
Gone for a Burton said:
"Irrefutable weight of evidence"

"Clear & Obvious"

"Once & for all"

I think Lord Pannick will have all angles covered and Khaldoon will be in his ear piece & the Quality St Gang in reception.
Click to expand...
I don’t think they’ll be much use anymore for the purposes of what you seek.
 
Will there be opening statements?

"We're here because some clubs didn't want competition, fair or otherwise, and wanted to maintain a cartel. These rules were designed to affect competitors, new entrants to the limited number of clubs with money, or debt, and not to minimise risk of clubs getting into financial difficulties. That being said, we maintain that we have not broken any of these anti-competitive rules. The club has arranged its affairs accordingly, like other clubs claiming offsetting costs such as on new stadiums that never were built, hotels that aren't part of the footballing business, and most of United's offshore jiggery-pokery.

Directors of rival clubs hold administrative posts in the regulatory bodies. Two rival clubs were consulted about the most senior job in the Premier League. Rival clubs have prompted this present situation, and we believe that part of the aim is to damage City's reputation even if, nay when, you establish there is no case to answer.

Should you quickly realise the veracity of this statement, we hope you would quickly advise the Premier League that it would be folly to keep this inquiry going in the vain hope of finding some minor infringement of the rules. We also hope that you will understand that any 'lack of cooperation' would be understandable given that no defendant should be obliged to cooperate with a biased and compromised prosecutor."
 
Last edited:
give it to gordon said:
Once this is over I hope the pl do in depth investigations going back decades on all the other clubs.
But wait rags have just been allowed to be 75million over ffp
Click to expand...
It’s a farce,had to listen to the we built our club with money we earned bollox yesterday so what we have done is nothing like how they did it. It’s truly pathetic.
 
bigA said:
That looks like they're taking desperation to new depths in their quest to tarnish the club and it's reputation. Whatever next, them making unfounded and unsubstantiated accusations of our owners having links to Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah or Hamas.
Click to expand...
Tarnished.....

The bloody hypocrisy.

Facts for the media record :-
Evicted plane crash victims families from their homes

Chairman sold rancid meat to Manchester schools

Employed a Director who sold club match day complimentary tickets to spivs.

Employed a Chairman who peeped under ladies toilet doors at his golf club.

Employed an evil, bullying piss can who lied when his lips moved and started the decline of that hideous club with his attempt to blackmail the Coolmores over horsespunk.

I'll not cover the multitude of despicable acts committed by their ugly, violent wife beating socially inadequate window licking bozos masquerading as footballers, cos I'm going out on Tuesday !!

Scheming , manipulative hypocrites, always have been and always will be !!
 
dubblue said:
It’s a farce,had to listen to the we built our club with money we earned bollox yesterday so what we have done is nothing like how they did it. It’s truly pathetic.
Click to expand...

Where is all this money earned when they are a billion in debt? Everything of theirs has been financed on the never never since 2005.
 
Vic said:
Will there be opening statements?

"We're here because some clubs didn't want competition, fair or otherwise, and wanted to maintain a cartel. These rules were designed to affect competitors, new entrants to the limited number of clubs with money, or debt, and not to minimise risk of clubs getting into financial difficulties. That being said, we maintain that we have not broken any of these anti-competitive rules. The club has arranged its affairs accordingly, like other clubs claiming offsetting costs such as on new stadiums that never were built, hotels that aren't part of the footballing business, and most of United's offshore jiggery-pokery.
Click to expand...

If I was on the panel I'd have found the use of the legal term "offshore jiggery-poker," sufficiently persuasive to dismiss the charges right there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

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.