PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Stoned Rose said:
“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?
Click to expand...
History is littered with examples. Nazi Germany, Poll Tax, Window Tax. Everyone at work signed a document saying they’d adhere to a dress code. Guess what. Monarchies, Governments, Board Rooms make stupid rules and they get broken and or quickly forgotten.
 
Blue Mist said:
@slbsn what is your opinion that the rags claimed 35 million for the sale of the shares to Scruffy Jim ?
It is surely a private matter between the Glazer family, who owned and were selling the shares and Scruffy. Would Scuffy be allowed to see company info which meant solicitors acting for the club had to be involved ?


Or was it just another con job ?
Click to expand...
Shouldn't have been in the club's books but don't know if it is legitimate or not. Assume PL said fine.
 
jrb said:
Let’s be honest. If City wanted to take the Scouse hacking further, they could have. City decided to settle out of court with a pay off. We’ll never know the reason why. The PL were happy with that. City could have absolutely slaughtered Henry and Liverpool in court. But City decided not to do that. Yet all along Henry and Liverpool have been behind the constant and under handed smear campaign and attacks against City. Very strange decision by City.
Click to expand...
I think we were embarrassed about our own stupidity in allowing in to happen and not changing login/passwords when we lost an employee to the dippers.

Not the first time a serious lapse of security has cause the club issues on IT.
 
Lord Blue said:
having seen the key documents, are we allowed to put forward additional related documents?

for silly instance if they said that the Sheikh was seen in a cafe with Mancini handing him a gold bar on Christmas day. Could City go away and get a document confirming that the Sheikh was in Abu Dhabi and Mancini was at Disney World on the day in question and whats more the cafe shuts on christmas day.
Click to expand...
Yes - not new documents in all likelihood but rather stressing the importance of a particular document that has already been in play as part of disclosed documents.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
They must have been aware of Fordham as UEFA spoke to us about it in 2014 or 2015. As the PL act as the FFP licensor, they were surely either involved or at least aware of these discussions. And Fordham was visibly linked to City, specifically the Manchester City Sports Image Rights company, on the Companies House website. It's inconceivable that the Der Spiegel articles were the first they'd heard about Fordham.

I'd have thought if we could show that the PL were acting under pressure from certain clubs, following the pretty definitive CAS outcome, that would have some impact on our case and that it was potentially vexatious rather than principled.
Click to expand...
That has always been my impression to but who really knows.
 
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.