PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Ric said:
Click to expand...


Interestingly (to me, at least), @petrusha and I had a chat a while ago about how poorly written some of the PL rules were. Not in this context, but that makes it worse, not better.

Interestingly 2 (and only to me), I was writing last night about Mancini in my great tome on the PL's allegations. I quoted the actual rule the club is alleged to have breached and literally just wrote "the wording is important". Scary *Twilight Zone music*
 
halfcenturyup said:
Interestingly (to me, at least), @petrusha and I had a chat a while ago about how poorly written some of the PL rules were. Not in this context, but that makes it worse, not better.

Interestingly 2 (and only to me), I was writing last night about Mancini in my great tome on the PL's allegations. I quoted the actual rule the club is alleged to have breached and literally just wrote "the wording is important". Scary *Twilight Zone music*
Click to expand...

After we’ve wiped the floor with them there should be a full & open enquiry.

I’d love to see Masters questioned about the motivations he had as the CEO to try & ruin clubs whilst stating he aim was to ensure clubs don’t get ruined.
 
This "Independent Commission", whose decision Leicester were appealing. Is this the same "independent commission", albeit with different members, we're in front of in September ? If so, that they ignored such an obvious flaw in the PL charges and went along with the PL's "interpretation" of the rules doesn't fill me with optimism, at least for the September hearing.
 
@slbsn Does this Leicester ruling put paid to any attempt by the PL of charging Chelsea, Everton, Villa et al for acting in bad faith, as the PL had threatened to do, for their end of season "swap" deals, or, for that matter for Chelsea's non-footballing asset sales? After all, there is nothing in the rules to stop them specifically, and the "spirit of the rules" argument seems to have gone out of the window.

Those swap deals can't be picked up by APT either, I don't think because the rules were so specifically written with a 5% common shareholding rule deliberately to exclude clubs in the PL transacting with each other?

It seems to me the PL is in a bit of a mess credibility-wise. Hopefully, City can heap some more pressure on with a favourable verdict in the APT case.
 
Newman Noggs said:
This "Independent Commission", whose decision Leicester were appealing. Is this the same "independent commission", albeit with different members, we're in front of in September ? If so, that they ignored such an obvious flaw in the PL charges and went along with the PL's "interpretation" of the rules doesn't fill me with optimism, at least for the September hearing.
Click to expand...

Yes. But what should give you confidence is the appeal process which worked in Leicester's favour. Completely unexpectedly. It's a game of 90 minutes don't forget. You get nothing for winning at half-time.

Iirc, the appeals panels are chosen from a different pool of experts, probably more experienced. It's a good thing they know they can reverse the original panel's verdict. I would imagine we are heading that way if we get an unfavourable outcome this time. So it bodes well, I think.
 
cheekybids said:
After we’ve wiped the floor with them there should be a full & open enquiry.

I’d love to see Masters questioned about the motivations he had as the CEO to try & ruin clubs whilst stating he aim was to ensure clubs don’t get ruined.
Click to expand...
This is the key point. Leicester didn’t go bust. They invested money in their business to try and get back to the PL. it was a smart decision.
 
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.