PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[levets]

View attachment 131983

Same scouser from my previous screen grab. Fuck his anonymity here.

Is that Twitter/X ?

 

[Silva2021]

Their social media worker has to be certainly sued by City. As well as worker of Domino’s Pizza. The sooner City will eliminate this stuff the better.

Jeez, terrible idea.

It’s the world we live in and this banter is acceptable face of it.

PP I don’t mind as much as Dominos who seem very anti City (PP do everyone and we’re very much in the news, so 100% we are fair game).

If you were to go and try and sue them the floodgates would open and rightly so. The companies would love it (how much publicity) and we would look like a right load of c u next Tuesdays.

There was only ever one winner when M&S sued Aldi for the caterpillar cakes (they are still milking it).

To put it in football terms, it would be an own goal!!

 

[kaz7]

One day closer to knowing the truth

 

[jaiguruKun]

Their social media worker has to be certainly sued by City. As well as worker of Domino’s Pizza. The sooner City will eliminate this stuff the better.

Sue them for what?
Making a joke?
Seriously, I'm as thin-skinned as any Blue but that is a bit embarassing.

 

[Champions again in 2012]

I'm sure I'm not the only person feeling quietly confident, but also with a nagging doubt that there might be something lurking in the background.

For reassurance I watched one of Stefan's interviews on Talksport following the Leicester loophole.
He was asked if City could find any similar loopholes and he immediately asserted that City had been charged for something surrounding the Mancini contract that technically wasn't even the rule at that precise moment in time

Naturally he was interrupted by the sneering Jordan but if that's true, then alongside the wording of the Leicester loophole, and also the errors in the original publication of the PL allegations (grass too long etc) then that's already three errors that we're aware of, and the strong possibility that there might be more.

We still face a potential smoking gun, but surely someone would have heard something by now,. especially with Omar Berruda switching to the rags.

In fact the only thing that really concerns me is City's PR which for some reason, they deem to be unimportant.and maybe not even necessary
Khaldoon has been offered 2-3 opportunities to speak directly, but on each occasion has opted for a soft interview with Chris Bailey
I appreciate that he couldn't speak directly about the hearing, but he could have been more bullish about the CAS verdict and the subsequent revisionism from the usual suspects.
Instead he hid behind "I'll speak strongly after the verdict" which frankly, I fear will be too late, regardless of the outcome.

That's why I remain convinced that City will be exonerated of the serious charges, but it will be reported as though we got away with it.

I wouldn't describe Leicester getting cleared as being via a loophole. The appeal panel were quite critical of the way the regulations were worded and made it clear that as they had handed their premier league licence back following relegation the premier league had no juristiction to charge Leicester

 

[LeonardoDaVnci]

cheers,

I'm just reading though all the handbooks and my thoughts are we're going to beat these easily as the wording is very specific which works in our favour. I'm on to the 15/16 handbook and it's all the same stuff except the E53 to E60 rules which is about related parties. Easily cleared up as the best the PL could hope for is associated parties plus it was cleared up in CAS anyway. We're going to wipe the floor with them. I'm extremely optimistic now.

@BerkshireBlue: I hope the IC agrees with your assessment. My reasoning regarding Mancini's situation is this: given that the charges were announced in February 2023, the Statute of Limitations (SoL) must be considered by the IC. The consultancy contract, in my view, was neither criminal nor mistaken — but was it concealed?

We could argue that, since there were no specific rules in the Premier League handbook (circa 2008) requiring a club to report contracts between its parent company (ADUG) and a club employee (Mancini), there was no concealment in our accounts. If there was no criminality, no mistakes, and no concealment, then the issue should be time-barred.

The Premier League could counter with an argument of "not acting in good faith," which carries non-sporting sanctions if the IC agrees.

Of course, I'm not a lawyer, but I'd love to know if my reasoning is flawed — or perhaps, not?

 

[Cobwebcat]

One day closer to knowing the truth

You can’t handle the truth ;-)

 

[Father Paul]

I'm sure I'm not the only person feeling quietly confident, but also with a nagging doubt that there might be something lurking in the background.

For reassurance I watched one of Stefan's interviews on Talksport following the Leicester loophole.
He was asked if City could find any similar loopholes and he immediately asserted that City had been charged for something surrounding the Mancini contract that technically wasn't even the rule at that precise moment in time

Naturally he was interrupted by the sneering Jordan but if that's true, then alongside the wording of the Leicester loophole, and also the errors in the original publication of the PL allegations (grass too long etc) then that's already three errors that we're aware of, and the strong possibility that there might be more.

We still face a potential smoking gun, but surely someone would have heard something by now,. especially with Omar Berruda switching to the rags.

In fact the only thing that really concerns me is City's PR which for some reason, they deem to be unimportant.and maybe not even necessary
Khaldoon has been offered 2-3 opportunities to speak directly, but on each occasion has opted for a soft interview with Chris Bailey
I appreciate that he couldn't speak directly about the hearing, but he could have been more bullish about the CAS verdict and the subsequent revisionism from the usual suspects.
Instead he hid behind "I'll speak strongly after the verdict" which frankly, I fear will be too late, regardless of the outcome.

That's why I remain convinced that City will be exonerated of the serious charges, but it will be reported as though we got away with it.

Most on here will be more than happy with that outcome I should think as we have given up on the media giving us a fair shake long ago.

 

[Roy Munson]

Their social media worker has to be certainly sued by City. As well as worker of Domino’s Pizza. The sooner City will eliminate this stuff the better.

Sued for doing their job and creating engagement with a bit of silly humour? Calm down, fella. Of all the malicious stuff written/posted about City, this is way down the list.

 

[Silva2021]

I couldn't give a shit how it's reported after the fact if the actual fact is exoneration.

People have this false idea that if we get back completely exonerated which is never going to be the case, that opposing fans will say fair play etc.

The reality is we will win points and lose points on the judgment and opposing fans will pick points we lose.

The only important thing is the outcome, that changes everything. Opposing football fans opinion are very inferior.