PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Probably true, but he will be up in front of retired judges, presumably, who have been doing things that way for longer than he has. Make the old dears feel comfortable is my advice instead of having them floundering in front of a computer screen much to everyone's amusement ....

I expect The tribunal will have no choice but to operate via a digital platform and will most likely be adept at it.

 

[mexico1970]

It'd be interesting if they had this tribunal/trial/witch-hunt on PPV, I reckon the protagonists would make a fair old killing.

 

[Mid Wales blue]

Isn't that "digitised"?

Never mind. Stupid, pedantic point and probably wrong anyway :)

I’m pretty sure that’s when you poke someone in the eye!

 

[GortonBlue62]

I expect The tribunal will have no choice but to operate via a digital platform and will most likely be adept at it.

You know when you see legal dramas on TV, both British and American, the lawyers' office walls have hundreds of expensive leather bound books, is that all a relic of the past?

Would a lawyer ever consult a book rather than search an online database
these days?

 

[r.soleofsalford]

Just remind me who Ian Darke is? Seriously.

I’d struggle to pick him out of a two man line.

 

[bluemonkey71]

One of the lads near me at the match last night said that Esteemedkompany had tweeted that Lord Pannick got half the charges dropped on Monday. I've not seen the tweet and can't find it.

Apparently, the Premier League barrister read out the charges and Pannick presented the original document, and said (something along the lines of), "No. This is what you originally charged City with, this is what we are defending." and the panel agreed.

Does anyone know about this tweet or heard anything similar?

I delved using a few computer tools and have done a video, ( it needs finishing) on this very subject. Basically there are 15 differences in the text on this page as it stands now, compared to what it said origonally on 06 Feb 23 (It's been changed several times).

Premier League statement

www.premierleague.com

This could totally wreck the case, as the first errors were all in allegation 1, they missed the letter of several of them...

I'll try to finish it and upload it to YouTube at the weekend.

Any links to that tweet would be appreciated?

Have you tried the wayback machine - internet archive to see the changes?

A quick look between two versions in February shows changes:

1. In respect of each of Seasons 2009/10 to 2017/18 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those seasons that required provision by a member club to the Premier League, in the utmost good faith, of accurate financial information that gives a true and fair view of the club’s financial position, in particular with respect to its revenue (including sponsorship revenue), its related parties and its operating costs, namely:
(a) for Season 2009/10, Premier League Rules B.13, C.71, C.72, C.75 (amended to C.79 from 10 September 2009 for the remainder of Season 2009/10) and C.80;


1. In respect of each of Seasons 2009/10 to 2017/18 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those seasons that required provision by a member club to the Premier League, in the utmost good faith, of accurate financial information that gives a true and fair view of the club’s financial position, in particular with respect to its revenue (including sponsorship revenue), its related parties and its operating costs, namely:
(a) for Season 2009/10, Premier League Rules B.13, C.71, C.72 and C.75 (from 10 September 2009, Premier League Rules B.13, C.71, C.72, C.79 and C.80);

 

[Eric Hitchmough]

I don’t get to check Bluemoon as much as I used to, and I definitely don’t have the time to scroll through 6,000+ pages in this thread, so apologies if this has already been discussed to death! I’m really just curious to hear people’s thoughts on one thing. IF City are found guilty of these charges, how do you think it will impact the fan base and our support moving forward?

Will we lose some fans, or do you think it will actually strengthen the bond between us as supporters? Personally, while I’d be disappointed, I’ll still back the club all the way. No matter the outcome, my support won’t change.

But what about future fans? Especially those who are just getting into football. Do you think this situation could put them off supporting City, or will they still be drawn in by the football we play and the culture around the club?

I’d love to hear how others feel about it and what you think might happen if things don’t go our way.

We’d lose the day trippers who spend £200 in the club shop (aka Soriano’s target audience).

We’d lose the YouTubers who bag tickets for any game they like and film themselves talking into their precious iPads for 90 minutes.

We’d potentially regain some of the hardcore, disillusioned legacy fans who have been priced out/ground down by the ‘matchday experience’ in recent years and understandably voted with their feet.

That being said, hopefully we’ll never know because we will tear the PL a new one!

 

[jacko74]

Like I said, just leave it there.

Because you realise you're wrong and incapable of forming a valid or coherent counter argument.

Fair enough.

 

[Eric Hitchmough]

Because you realise you're wrong and incapable of forming a valid or coherent counter argument.

Fair enough.

Jesus mate just stick him on Ignore if you need to. No point clogging up the thread with multiple potshots surely.

 

[kaz7]

If, and it is a big if , they find us guilty of something we need to stick together , the cunts like harris will be trawling here for something to tweet about , how we are divided and argueing with each other . Can we put all petty arguements aside and build a blue wall around the club ? Pretty please

And hope pannick can get us out of it , i am not going to point fingers at khaldoon or anyone else at the club as i just dont believe we are run badly and with criminal intent , as the orange **** in america would say , it is a witch hunt !