PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Father Paul]

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.

Apparently a GDPR issue or so it was said on here. What is probably correct to say, obviously in hindsight, City should have gone to the courts back at the beginning of all this. This would have given greater clarity and possibly defined what the PL and indeed the international bodies are allowed to do.

 

[Stoned Rose]

Not a question of whether they liked the rules they signed up to or not. We signed up to a rule that required us to register a manager's contract, which had various statutory clauses in it. Presumably we did just that, in order to comply.

Yet we're being charged with something that someone has decided broke those rules, even though the rules didn't say anything about the things we've been charged with when we first got into Europe under Mancini in 2010/11.

Shouldn’t have any dramas getting that part fucked off then should we?.

 

[RodneyRodney]

That’s life mate.

You as an individual are bound by every law in the land. You have no choice. Break them and off you pop to spend some time at HMP.

Whether you like it or not or agree with it or not.

Same for City and this. Either sign up and abide by the rules or fuck off. We signed up.

Not if you're Huw Edwards

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Shouldn’t have any dramas getting that part fucked off then should we?.

Probably time-barred anyway.

 

[BamberBridgeBlue]

“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?

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.

 

[Stoned Rose]

Not if you're Huw Edwards

Perhaps Mr Edwards used the excellent defence of “I don’t agree with the law so it doesn’t apply to me so you can’t punish me”?

 

[slbsn]

@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 ?

Shouldn't have been in the club's books but don't know if it is legitimate or not. Assume PL said fine.

 

[Gundoggin]

 

[Keeper!]

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.

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.

 

[slbsn]

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.

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.