PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Nah, very poor comparison, there are plenty of rules and laws that are just and justified and are there for the good of society as a whole and are applied even handedly.. then there are some rules that are entirely unjust and iniquitous and only in place to benefit and enrich a certain section of society, chiefly the wealthy and privileged.

And what do you think would have happened if we hadn't signed up to the rules?

We had no choice but to sign up to them or else we would have faced the same persecution, vilification and potential punishment that we're now experiencing.

“then there are some rules that are entirely unjust and iniquitous and only in place to benefit and enrich a certain section of society, chiefly the wealthy and privileged”

Give me some examples?

Whether we had a choice or not to sign up is irrelevant. What is relevant is that we did. Therefore, we simply have to abide by the rules.

Your “it’d be ok to breach the rules because I don’t agree with them” approach is infantile and not how the real world works.

Let’s say the dippers now go and breach a raft of the rules and as result won the next 5 prems, would you back them if they took the stance of “fuck it, the rules are shit anyway” and advocate for them avoiding sanctions?
 
Last edited:
That's the kind of thing I was querying, would things like that come under disguised owner investment now? Would anything like that have to be declared?
It seems like these new financial rules would have to be incredibly convoluted to cover all the eventualities and it feels like the Premier League are using the whole 'bad faith' clause to do a lot of the heavy lifting in the regulations which, as we saw with Leicester, doesn't seem like the best idea.

They were both before the rules & only a few years apart with no time limits……
 
“then there are some rules that are entirely unjust and iniquitous and only in place to benefit and enrich a certain section of society, chiefly the wealthy and privileged”

Give me some examples?
Well the Income tax laws for one... if you're very wealthy or a very high earner then there's all manner of loopholes and tax breaks you can exploit to quite legally avoid paying your full obligation (just ask Saint Marcus) but if you're just a lowly average earning PAYE employee then suck it up buttercup and pay your full due.
 
Well the Income tax laws for one... if you're very wealthy or a very high earner then there's all manner of loopholes and tax breaks you can exploit to quite legally avoid paying your full obligation (just ask Saint Marcus) but if you're just a lowly average earning PAYE employee then suck it up buttercup and pay your full due.

But do you breach the tax rules then go “rules are shit, so I can’t be punished?”.
 
If I was the PL, I'd be cross examining every witness. The Mancini matter is dead with an unchallenged witness statement. If a witness statement is unchallenged, the panel are likely to accept every word as unchallenged evidence ie fact.

He said no one had even spoken to him in the first 4 years of an investigation before charging us. How can this be?
 
Masters is smug tonight with a carrot adorned in an utd kit ready for his ricker because City never won.
No mention of us not being beaten for 2 full yrs at home
 
Whether we agree with the rules or not, rules are rules.

It’d be like a shoplifter getting convicted of nicking a load of clothes from JD then saying “nah mate the rules are snide, so it doesn’t count”.

We signed up to the rules. If we didn’t agree with them we shouldn’t have done.
The rules were only brought in to fuck us over.
 

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.