PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

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).


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?

I haven't tweeted that mate lol. Someone is either making that up or they've said the wrong person?
 
There seems to be a distinct lack of perspective on the whole farce of these charges.

Fans of other clubs have in mind that everything we do is fraudulent and the narrative of the media is that we have cheated the system from day one and continue to do so now.

And so because of this "enormous" ongoing fraudulent expenditure we have the best players and best manager and so heir poor little clubs (with similar levels of income) can't compete, because somewhere along the line we have £billions more income than we have ever shown in our accounts.

As I understand the actual allegations are that our accounts conceal a relatively small amount of extra sponsorship money a good number of years ago.

Obviously if our accounts are fraudulent then that alone is a serious matter, but can anyone tell me what the maximum amount of money is that we are supposed to have concealed in our accounts and how long ago this was?

I am guessing that the amount is pretty insubstantial compared to revenues and a long time ago.
 

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.