PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Fordyboy46 said:
I was replying to a ' we must spend big in the next transfer window' pal
Click to expand...
Yeah sorry, i just see too much of, if we are guilty of 1 charge then it must be all 115, far too many people, and the media encourage us to look at the, 115 as a block charge, when it is 2 dozen mostly petty charges tied together with 2 pieces of string, fair and accurate, and non cooperation
 
salfordbluetrue said:
Yeah sorry, i just see too much of, if we are guilty of 1 charge then it must be all 115, far too many people, and the media encourage us to look at the, 115 as a block charge, when it is 2 dozen mostly petty charges tied together with 2 pieces of string, fair and accurate, and non cooperation
Click to expand...
If the PL had irrefutable evidence of even 1 charge being proven surely they would have gone ahead and handed down punishment very quickly indeed. Not doing so could be seen as the evidence they do have is open to question and is in the best case for them is possible or probable and in the worst case circumstantial or flimsy.
 
bigA said:
If the PL had irrefutable evidence of even 1 charge being proven surely they would have gone ahead and handed down punishment very quickly indeed. Not doing so could be seen as the evidence they do have is open to question and is in the best case for them is possible or probable and in the worst case circumstantial or flimsy.
Click to expand...
I have little doubt that during our steep learning curve we will have done something wrong, maybe it was copying utd`s image rights? certainly we have filed our accounts late, pretty sure we got punished at the time as well? but the PL having irrefutable evidence of just 1 charge would be meaningless, when you consider the court costs. Just my opinion but the Fair and Accurate 54 charges i believe, got put to bed by Leicester, not so much the appeal, but the PL independent panel that got caught perverting the understanding of the rules, it put a huge amount of pressure on our panel, to only except legal terms. I do think the Panel will allow the non cooperation charges 35 i believe to run, but the burden of suspicion will be raised, a simple accusation would not merit non cooperation on the basis that the information required is not in the rule book. No doubt City will fight these charges individually.
That is where i think City are now, pure guess work, but it is better than the media, who have real lawyers, i only have my video`s of Ironside :)
 
bigA said:
If the PL had irrefutable evidence of even 1 charge being proven surely they would have gone ahead and handed down punishment very quickly indeed. Not doing so could be seen as the evidence they do have is open to question and is in the best case for them is possible or probable and in the worst case circumstantial or flimsy.
Click to expand...

Their evidence doesn't need to be irrefutable, only proven to be more likely than not based on balance of probabilities.

These are very serious allegations with supposedly millions of documents of evidence both in favour of their arguments and in our defence.

Add to that there's no actual official confirmation this is even over yet, the hearing may well still be ongoing.

What I'm saying is that those who know their onions on this stuff have said all along it'll take a while before we know any outcome, that hasn't changed.
 
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.