They ducked out of the dipper charge by claiming it was all settled up between the two clubs. Personally I think it was insane letting the dippers away with it but subsequently read on here that considerations regarding GDPR and possible severe sanctions softened our cough in relation to this matter.My first question to Masters would be Why have you charged Manchester City for things that allegedly happened 12 years ago when you didn't charge Liverpool for Hacking City's database as " It was too long ago" By the way, you have charged Manchester City for breaking EUFA FFP. Man United were found guilty by EUFA and fined for breaking FFP but not charged. Why not?
Yet they've got let off from failing PSR because of the Premier League giving them a Covid 19 allowance over 40 times more than the next highest allowance and an allowance of £35 million for their legal fees from Scruffy Jim's investment. A fee oid Catweazle could have easily paid from his tax dodging money. As the old saying goes "One rule for one, one for the rest of us". That is what we're up against.My seemingly sensible brother in law (rag) is convinced if we “get let off” its because we bribed “The FA”.
This is what we are up against.
I asked him what the fuck its got to do with the FA anyway and how any bribe would go down.
He just said “money talks”
:))
but this is the problem for the PL they've wrote the rules and what you've just said is city passes all of them apart from the first good faith one. So for the seasons from 2009 to 2013 they've charged us with 20 breaches, we pass them all by definition apart from 4 of them which are open to interpretation.Ah, this is where we are disagreeing.
I agree with you that the club has very probably complied with a literal reading of P7 and P8 which I suppose is the benchmark now, so those two rules shouldn't be a problem.
But I think you can't read the "filing incorrect accounts" rules literally, for the very reason they have also thrown "bad faith" in there. Yes, the club filed accounts. Yes, they had a clean audit opinion. Yes, the club filed future financial information. All good. Until you take bad faith into account. The PL is saying the directors filed accounts in bad faith because they knew they were wrong, deceived the auditors in bad faith into giving a clean opinion and then deliberately concealed all that in bad faith from the PL.
If you don't take the bad faith allegation into account, it's basically saying these aren't effectively allegations of fraud and that argument has been done to death since day one.
Anyway, I could be completely wrong, but I think all that applies to Mancini and Fordham and/ or Toure as much as sponsorship, no matter what the individual rules for manager and player remuneration say.
In the absence of the specific carve outs to the statute of limitations points, bad faith in isolation would not break the SoL. And it can be distinguished from fraud. Clearly, if fraud then it is also bad faith but not vice versa necessarily (I would argue).
In person by default but plenty remote I suspect. There is a back door it seems so don't expect to see witnesses coming and going
agreed, but this is just the first section which is just not going to stick at all.I agree entirely with what you have said. The rules only cover his contract with the club. So why the fuck have they charged us ? Surely if we broke the actual rules at that time we should have been charged then. It stinks of "charge them with everything we can think of and hope something sticks".
Very little's changed mate. Numerous posters rehashing most of what's been posted several times already.I’m struggling to keep up with this thread. And that’s with me off work this week It’s going to be a long haul.
In person by default but plenty remote I suspect. There is a back door it seems so don't expect to see witnesses coming and going
Yeah, watched that, Slater and his sidekick offered no balance, no mention of the emails being doctored etcI watched The Athletic YouTube channel video about "what punishment will City get?"
Video truthfully wasn't as bad as I was expecting, still was bad mind you, but at least they mostly included "if".
They did address, very briefly, what will City do if/when we win the case. They seemed to think City would be happy to just let it go and move on
I find that madness.