PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[manimanc]

It wouldn't surprise me if the Premier League actually produced the fabricated emails in court as evidence as they are coming across as amateurish and clueless as of late, well actually not as of late but for the last 2 years since they accused us.

Whilst the Premier League and rival football fans accuse us of fraud, inflating sponsorship deals and fabricating figures, we announce news of sponsorship deals being extended with current partners and new sponsors coming aboard.

Sometimes actions speak louder than words.

 

[foggy1974]

I would say that it depends what it says in the emails. CAS stated that an email suggesting that we could do x, did not amount to proof that we actually did x.

But an email stating that we had done x might be seen in a different light.

It depends if those emails have been spliced together.

 

[bluemc]

Mad hat still going on and on and on now he is talking down Stefan , tell me is it not correct that email will not be enough for the panel to find City guilty.

@slbsn @Prestwich_Blue tell me if I am wrong, emails are not enough to find City guilty of the main charges.

Are people still getting worked up by the Harris alter ego?

Internet crackpot. Nothing more. Block and move on.

 

[BerkshireBlue]

Mad hat still going on and on and on now he is talking down Stefan , tell me is it not correct that email will not be enough for the panel to find City guilty.

@slbsn @Prestwich_Blue tell me if I am wrong, emails are not enough to find City guilty of the main charges.

I read the evidence he posted on X and most of it was out of context rubbish. Some of it was based on forecasts which are just forecasts and aren't worth looking at. Others based on payments from ADUG which are are already explained in CAS. So he's basically spent days researching it and come up with no tangible evidence whatsoever. I put these points to him and he couldn't come up with a reply. Ignore him he's a nutter

 

[deano ou812]

Maybe they have, but i cant see us going to arbitration if there is new bang to rights evidence, i would imagine our legal representation would have advised us to cut a deal.

I mean after the 115 is done and dusted I wouldn’t be surprised say a year or 18 months down the line some other bollocks crops up for us to clear our name..

 

[halfcenturyup]

I read the evidence he posted on X and most of it was out of context rubbish. Some of it was based on forecasts which are just forecasts and aren't worth looking at. Others based on payments from ADUG which are are already explained in CAS. So he's basically spent days researching it and come up with no tangible evidence whatsoever. I put these points to him and he couldn't come up with a reply. Ignore him he's a nutter

If you didn't get blocked, you aren't doing it right :)

 

[deano ou812]

I read the evidence he posted on X and most of it was out of context rubbish. Some of it was based on forecasts which are just forecasts and aren't worth looking at. Others based on payments from ADUG which are are already explained in CAS. So he's basically spent days researching it and come up with no tangible evidence whatsoever. I put these points to him and he couldn't come up with a reply. Ignore him he's a nutter

He’s an idiot Harris a mentally disturbed one at that ..

 

[mancboy]

I mean after the 115 is done and dusted I wouldn’t be surprised say a year or 18 months down the line some other bollocks crops up for us to clear our name..

more than likely the pl dont seem to be bothered about embarrassing themselves.

 

[mancboy]

He’s an idiot Harris a mentally disturbed one at that ..

i genuinely dont understand his pathological hatred of city, he has set himself up as some kind of bastion of moral integrity yet hasnt had a peep to say about any other case apart from ours much less the shady accounting practices employed by the rags and the dippers, and nothing about standard chartered either so his schtick just doesnt ring true, he just despises city and hes embarrassing himself with it.

 

[halfcenturyup]

I would say that it depends what it says in the emails. CAS stated that an email suggesting that we could do x, did not amount to proof that we actually did x.

But an email stating that we had done x might be seen in a different light.

Those emails may carry more weight but they would still have to prove it was actually reflected in the accounts, imho.

For example, the attachments to some of the emails consistently refer to the AD sponsorships as shareholder funding and, in the emails at least, it was never corrected by Pearce or anyone else. It means nothing, however, people mislabel things all the time. The only thing that matters is where the money came from and if the PL can prove on the balance of probabilities that it came from ADUG. I don't think they can.