PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

The best evidence of our innocence is the silence, no whistle-blowers, former players, managers, ex-executive staff. If we'd have conspired to do what we're accused of over 15 years, well, just think rationally.
I have said this same point in the past when people go on about 2nd wages etc..

We have had players leave on good terms, we have players who have left on bad terms. We have agents who have fallen out with the club etc.. At no point has anyone come out as a whistle blower, just think of the publicity and plaudits someone would get by the media masses if they were to provide evidence of off the book payments.

I also laugh that we have lost players to other clubs ( Sterling / Sane ) who have gone for increased wages, well if we were secretly paying them double their reported salary how does this work?

You are right, people need to be rational and not follow the bullshit being pumped out by the media and internet
 
I've had it on good authority that this happened (and I know who it came from). More recently I've been told (but I couldn't verify, so treat it with caution) that we were specifically offered a 6-point deduction and a large fine to settle pre-hearing. I don't know if the deduction would have applied last season or this. Obviously our answer to that offer was no. This echoes what happened with UEFA, who offered us a fine to settle, an offer we again rejected.

You can look at this as the PL believing their case wouldn't stand up at a hearing, or that it would and they felt a slightly more severe penalty would be in order (although they have no idea what the IC might do).

Clearly the media weren't told, or if they were, chose not to publicise it for whatever reason.

Excuse my ignorance PB, but a large fine and a 6 point deduction on the face of it, to me, suggests the PL wished us to concede on one or some of the far less serious charges?

If they felt they had us for conspiracy/cheating over a course of a decade, but wished to settle out of the hearing, a 6 point and huge fine sounds ridiculously low.

I hope your information is right, as that (again, on the face of it to a lay person) seems to bode well for us on the serious stuff in the hearing.

Is that a reasonable take?
 
Excuse my ignorance PB, but a large fine and a 6 point deduction on the face of it, to me, suggests the PL wished us to concede on one or some of the far less serious charges?

If they felt they had us for conspiracy/cheating over a course of a decade, but wished to settle out of the hearing, a 6 point and huge fine sounds ridiculously low.

I hope your information is right, as that (again, on the face of it to a lay person) seems to bode well for us on the serious stuff in the hearing.

Is that a reasonable take?
I'd say it was related to the more serious charge, as they'd presumably want to offer a 'discount' for early settlement. I'd also say that the PL, having handed this to their own Independent Commission, were unlikely to be doing something like this (assuming they did) unilaterally, without reference to Murray Rosen.
 

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.