PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Prestwich_Blue said:
As you well know, you don't use a witness who can harm your case more than they can help it. I can't believe they expect to land the Mancini-related charges.

Given the outcome at CAS, I can't believe they expect they can land the sponsorship charges. If I'm right that they knew about Fordham back in 2015, and neither UEFA nor the PL did anything at the time or subsequently, then they surely can't be confident they can land that either. So why do this?

We've speculated that it's just to damage our reputation, which looks more and more like a rational explanation, plus they might hope to get us on the non-cooperation allegations. Given the cost of this to the PL, if I was one of the non-cartel member clubs of the PL, I'd be asking some very searching questions once this is over.
Click to expand...
City said in the official statement that they have "Comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence". I have always wondered what that might be..? Is it Audit report, Bank transaction details, Full chain of email conversations or something else...?

What's your thought on that, PB....?
 
Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese said:
I think if we 'win' (depending on what that looks like) it could end the PL. We know that the media spin which is becoming ever more intense is that we will either be found guilty, or found guilty and get away with it on some technicality. I don't think I've seen any serious reporting that accepts or suggest we may be innocent. I think anything but a total guilty verdict will give the American owned clubs the excuse to flounce off to a super league. The new CL format is another tentative step in that direction. Obviously if we are found guilty, stripped of points/titles and all the other stuff of rag/dipper wet dreams we'll be heavily punished and the league can go back to their 1990s status quo.
Click to expand...
Overthinking
 
Regarding Leicester and the failed PSR case in which it was said that the wording was not fit for purpose, no-one needs an education beyond grammar school level to understand that the incorrect use of punctuation marks, or lack of them, can make a vast difference in what a sentence is meant to be implying. What a turn up that would be if our case was dropped for the same reason. Our understanding of the rules versus the EPLs own version.
 
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.