PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

josepparseiola said:
Yesterday night I was in touch with one of the chefs at the grounds brother in law (can’t reveal much more) he told me that his brother in-law overheard some of the players speaking about the charges and the severity of the issue,he then said one of the senior players then made a remark saying it’s worse then we think and that a “4 year investigation means they already know” he believes that some of the players are aware of the charges and have become complacent.Some are even considering their futures especially the senior starting players.Do take this with a pinch of salt this was only heard from a family member during a dinner.
Click to expand...
hahaha and 1 message
 
"The law can't touch us because we made City sign something in a rulebook, or they had to fuck off. "You signed it City" We write the rules, we get to say if someone has broke them or not and whether we've proven it by English law or not. It's just football, who needs actual courts for that eh? Not like thousands of livelihoods are at stake. Not like there's corruption and vested interested in football or anything like that"

Jesus, it gets worse the more I think on it. That can't be right.
 
Last edited:
No1 was Colin bell said:
Here’s hoping for the same. Balls are back, fight back begins. All the giddy media walkers and other clubs fans seem to be missing the key word in all this. “If” proven. Gonna be one hell of an atmosphere come Sunday.
Click to expand...
That constant IF essentially males it all pretty much meaningless bollocks.

As in...IF it was them, then potentially they would be relegated and expelled too.

...or would they??
 
Pingu the Penguin said:
That’s not quite right either. Right about JR not being directly applicable, but not right that the court can’t have a supervisory role and look into procedural elements of the decision making. The Fallon case is the one to look at. Essentially the HC would step into a JR style role. If they didn’t see evidence in PL decisions that the high standards needed to assert fraud/deliberate bad faith CAS did (see projectrivers previous post on that) then the HC could effectively make them. The court won’t be the final decision maker, they’d send it back to the PL. But the steer would be v clear.

Just my take as an (ex) lawyer with a bit of experience in this.

Oh, and Panncik represented Fallon ;-)
Click to expand...
That clause about disputes being subject to the English courts: does that mean City could go to the court to dispute anything the Panel or the PL came up with, but the PL couldn't go to the court if they didn't like what the Panel said?
 
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.