PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

christopp said:
Not really.

Just a bunch of angry people on here who can’t handle considering things going a different way and apparently know everything.

Strange bunch
Click to expand...

Attention seekers with nothing better to do than waste people's time over a subject which carries importance for a lot of people who are invested in the club.

Not childish individuals looking for a two minute amusement .
 
If The Lawyer magazine is correct, the hearing didn’t even consider sanction. It was purely to establish liability (ie if and which charges are proven). If this is correct, there is no chance at all any rumour is true because the parties and the panel haven’t even started that part of the process.
 
salfordbluetrue said:
That probably is the case, as CAS is widely regarded as the leading brand, and recognized by most if not all sporting bodies. but then we would not be in a UEFA competition would we, if an appeal had failed.
It was a threat by City, but one that CAS could not dismiss.
Click to expand...
I'm not aware of (a) any threat by City to CAS or (b) any other body we could have gone to.

The appeal route from UEFA is to CAS and CAS only. There are narrow grounds to appeal to the Swiss courts following a CAS outcome but they are very specific. This is maybe what you're thinking of. I don't think there's been many appeals though and I also believe there's never been a successful one against a case heard by CAS .

You've got this wrong mate and when people like slbsn are telling you you're wrong then it's best to listen.
 
christopp said:
Not really.

Just a bunch of angry people on here who can’t handle considering things going a different way and apparently know everything.

Strange bunch
Click to expand...
I don't think people give a shit what some random pudding at a supporters club thinks about the charges, whatever side of the fence they are sat on.

It's just all the more embarrassing when someone comes on as the messenger, on behalf of the pudding.
 
slbsn said:
If The Lawyer magazine is correct, the hearing didn’t even consider sanction. It was purely to establish liability (ie if and which charges are proven). If this is correct, there is no chance at all any rumour is true because the parties and the panel haven’t even started that part of the process.
Click to expand...
If the determination hasn’t been declared to the parties, then how can any specific liability even have been mentioned by the panel? It wouldn’t make any sense at that stage.
 
I don’t give a shit about people on here who want to talk down to people regardless of how true it may or may not be.

However, if it ends up being legit then some of you know it alls are going to look very silly
 
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.