PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Coatigan said:
The thing is, if we can prove we provided accurate financial information, all the rest fall apart.

If our accounts were accurate, then
- so were the player and manager payments, per our accurate accounts
- we complied with uefa rules, per our accurate accounts
- we complied with psr, as per our accurate accounts
- even the noncooperaton charge becomes shoogly. They can try argue non cooperation beyond 2018, but we cooperated before that, and if our accounts were accurate up until then, there would have been no need for any further investigation beyond that point
It would be on the PL to reason why investigation should continue into the next 5 years, not strictly on us to keep cooperating indefinitely.
Click to expand...

You just wanted to use the word shoogly there didn’t you.

Who do you think you are? @gordondaviesmoustache ?
 
ProofMCFC said:
Just seen a post from talkshite about Shebahn Aherne, whoever that is saying “she fears City will find a loophole” and I’m actually shocked at the comments. I would say 90% are pro city. Questioning the integrity of the league, the rags losing 300M in the last few years being brushed under the carpet , red cartel etc. It seems people are finally waking up.
Click to expand...

IronsideKozuch said:
Would love to hear our legal team arguments on the matter, because surely they have some (I admire Pannick for years and read two of his books), but I just think we make grave mistake by not addressing publicly the merits of charges.

Where is Khaldoon, legal, accounting team? Why you leave Pep alone with this shit?

You do not spoil Your standpoint or make a mess or fuss to avoide offending anybody, therein obviously the panel. But also as a lawyer as a ultima ratio you should publicly defend Your Client if hes publicly under fire and total attack. You defend publicly with class and dignity. And to address the claims even at overall level.

Charges have been made public and I dont recall any subsantial, official line of our defense ffs.

We can say in general and ambiguous terms, that they took emails out of context for instance about need of payment by a sponsor because its been in accordance to contract and performance payments, which were happening at regular basis etc. I mean, short summary of whatever we put forward in the pleadings.

Publicity, media attacks you. PL made charges public. You can and should defend yourself appropriately, including to drive the public narrative in Your favour. I just would love to learn the reasoning from our legal team/PR strategists. They are exceptional experts so they would probably come up with something convincing but for now Im angry;)
Click to expand...

Do you not find it interesting, when people say they have noticed a small shift in perception towards the case, ffp/psr, the league etc. Do you not fond it interesting if you yourself notice this shift.

Many high profile court cases, often come with a bit of a PR war for the court of public opinion on the side.

Yet all this time since the first statement on thecharges, City as a club have said absolutely nothing. Not commented, not engaged, not refuted or challenging vsrious spurious claims and stories. Pep has said a thing or two when asked, but more in tone than words, which have always been ultimately 'wait and see'.

So the PL have a free run at a one sided PR war here, with the media and punters saying whatever they feel like.

Yet somehow, perception still seems to be shifting. The club are saying nothing, the media all follow a script, and the PL are still managing to come off looking worse than when this started. At the very least,the script has become tedious.

Maybe their silent approach isn't that bad after all.
 
Last edited:
Coatigan said:
Do you not find it interesting, when people say they have noticed a small shift in perception towards the case, ffp/psr, the league etc. Do you not fond it interesting if you yourself notice this shift.

Many high profile court cases, often come with a bit of a PR war for the court of public opinion on the side.

Yet all this time since the first statement on thecharges, City as a club have said absolutely nothing. Not commented, not engaged, not refuted or challenging vsrious spurious claims and stories. Pep has said a thing or two when asked, but more in tone than words, which have always been ultimately 'wait and see'.

So the PL have a free run at a one sided PR war here, with the media and punters saying whatever they feel like.

Yet somehow, perception still seems to be shifting. The club are saying nothing, the media all follow a script, and the PL are still managing to come off looking worse than when this started. At the very least,the script has become tedious.

Maybe their silent approach isn't that bad after all.
Click to expand...
Liverpool pr has them as the best team with the best players in every position - net result one title in 30 years, the rags pr has them as the biggest team in the world that every player is desperate to play for - net result couldnt organise a piss up in a brewery and a team full of washed up has beens and never will be.

The lesson is that pr is fun to appeal to the idiot masses but very rarely meshes with reality.
 
jrb said:
According to BBC United - Mediacity.

What are the 115 charges?​


• 54x Failure to provide accurate financial information 2009-10 to 2017-18.
• 14x Failure to provide accurate details for player and manager payments from 2009-10 to 2017-18.
• 5x Failure to comply with Uefa's rules including Financial Fair Play (FFP) 2013-14 to 2017-18.
• 7x Breaching Premier League's PSR rules 2015-16 to 2017-18.
• 35x Failure to co-operate with Premier League investigations December 2018 - February 2023.
Click to expand...
Good old BBC but as we are facing circa 130 charges what about the rest of them - shakes head
 
Coatigan said:
Do you not find it interesting, when people say they have noticed a small shift in perception towards the case, ffp/psr, the league etc. Do you not fond it interesting if you yourself notice this shift.

Many high profile court cases, often come with a bit of a PR war for the court of public opinion on the side.

Yet all this time since the first statement on thecharges, City as a club have said absolutely nothing. Not commented, not engaged, not refuted or challenging vsrious spurious claims and stories. Pep has said a thing or two when asked, but more in tone than words, which have always been ultimately 'wait and see'.

So the PL have a free run at a one sided PR war here, with the media and punters saying whatever they feel like.

Yet somehow, perception still seems to be shifting. The club are saying nothing, the media all follow a script, and the PL are still managing to come off looking worse than when this started. At the very least,the script has become tedious.

Maybe their silent approach isn't that bad after all.
Click to expand...
as my grandfather used to say...

never argue with an idiot.
he will bring you down to his level and beat you with experience.
 
Fordyboy46 said:
Sorry if already posted but that **** of a journalist Ian Herbert had to get in that the Mail's KC won a legal battle with Lord Panick about even reporting on these 115 charges.
I think the odious shitbag thinks that's 1-0 to the prem league already
Click to expand...
This was an appeal about the reporting of the case that City brought about the legality of the PL's right to ask for commercially sensitive documents, which they lost. The appeal by City to restrict reporting was supported by the PL however, the judge decided that reporting of the initial case should be allowed So, no the PL didn't win and Pannick wasn't involved at that stage
 
Now we're at the stage of the case starting, say we mounted evidence of criminality within the PL could the case be halted? In the same way if a whistleblower gave criminal evidence to the panel against us, would the case stop and be referred to police?
Or does the whole case take place, any criminality get identified, then a decision, then passed over to authority? Was thinking could we see arrests made during the 10 week window
 
Pingu the Penguin said:
You definitely have suggested no appeals possible. Amongst others I’ve suggested to you that there could be. But your view then was definitively not.

View attachment 131621
Click to expand...


Honestly didn't expect some of the type of nonsense I get on Twitter on here.

You have literally sent a screenshot of me saying "the only appeal is another PL panel". This would infer that I did not say no appeals of any kind.

The other reply in the picture is me explaining no appeal to the High Court which is now well established as correct.

No doubt you will idiotically double down in reply in the usual style I get on Twitter.
 
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.