PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

feedmpenzaandhewillscore said:
Bring it on, it’s getting boring rag and dippers supporters comforting themselves as this is the reason their clubs aren’t as successful as City. The rug needs pulling up from beneath them and the reality that the club is where it is through sporting merit, a lot of them will give up football all together but it’s no great loss.
Click to expand...

From the cunts who claim technicality yet haven’t failed premier league PSR last 2 years despite being the only club allowed to claim £35m for covid allowance & £45m for selling shares…….

It makes you realise how important the media & it isn’t for selling newspapers. Its having huge following to get interaction & cause outrage.

Everton & Forest can’t be outraged at the Rags cos there’s no stories for them to comment on.
 
melrose40yarder said:
Some dickhead on talkshite this morning between 5 and 6 said we all know what the charges are.I called them which i never nornally would and asked to be put through so said dickhead could tell me what the charges were guess what they would not put me through.I asked the person if they could ask the presenter to outline the charges so the listeners know what they are they didnt.
Click to expand...
Even if these twats knew what the charges were (and most of them don't) it means fuck-all in terms of whether we're guilty or not!
 
Kinkys Left Foot said:
This is the bit I have difficulty with in understanding the PLs position regarding the equity funding allegations.

At CAS they know the evidence from the emails has been properly considered against rebuttal evidence provided by CIty including the full run of the emails and therefore the missing context, evidence from City (Pearce) and evidence from Etihad, (didn't Etihad's representative say the allegation they only paid 8 million was ridiculous considering the sponsorship valuation), expert witness testimony from an accounts expert regarding the contents of Etihad's accounts and ADUG accounts (confirming no payments were made, particularly from HHSM or ADUG, but none of sufficient value, or smaller multiples thereof to cover the balance of the sponsorship value.

No other evidence other than the emails was offered by UEFA.

The above provided the basis from which the justices formed their "No evidence" opinion that equity funding took place.

So what possible evidence could be available (that City or Etihad would reasonably release to the PL if they were guilty) to prove such conduct did in fact take place? I strongly suspect there is none.

If there is none then the PL are relying solely that the IC will reach a finding contrary to the CAS justices (ignoring the 2-1 majority debacle). Isn't that going out on a limb somewhat with paper thin reasoning to believe that outcome is possible, considering the more likely outcome?

The more you try and reason it the more perplexing it becomes. Yet the PL are prepared to throw a 5 year, £20 Million "Hail Mary" at it.

Should things go in our favour as I suspect then the PL will get everything they deserve in the fallout. If it were possible I personally think we should pursue them for reputational damages should it be such a spectacular failure. The whole thing will have proved nothing more than a witch hunt with a show trial based on the flimsiest of evidence on already litigated matters.
Click to expand...
That's precisely why they adopted the scatter gun approach to the charges. Even if (when) the major charges fail, but maybe some minor ones land (Mancini, No-Coop) they would have their own get out of jail card. It would prove their big dick energy to the IR and justify Masters saying to the red cartel :-

"we've done absolutely everything we could for you, as we promised, Daniel, it cost us a fortune, but we did it, now what about my payments to the Cayman Island account, you know the ones old uncle Joe promised, before he got imprisoned"...
 
Last edited:
TheGhost said:
Make a complaint using this form - it only takes a minute to complete

Make A Complaint | Contact the BBC

www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk

If enough people do it he’ll have to change the article. Which will piss him off and make him think twice when using the phrase again.

What’s the URL of the article?

Be polite in your complaint
Click to expand...
it’s pointless with the BBC. I won’t waste my time with them any more. They don’t take complaints seriously. I know this with certainty from my own trusted sources at the BBC. The internal culture there stinks and will not change. It’s a same because some very good people work there.
 
Father Paul said:
What was it Roan said after this tragedy? I don't seem to recall anything.
Click to expand...
Before the bodies were cold Roan suggested the the young woman who died on the helicopter was more of the owners bit on the side rather than a PA/employee. True or not there was no need.
 
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.