PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Chi-town blues said:
Spot on. This floppy allegation is nothing but a witch hunt . There are countless counter arguments that our top lawyers will have a field da and run in circle forever.
So the obvious question is how can pl be so thick and naive ? the answer is they just want to smear the shit all over the club image and reputation if the cartel clubs can’t win trophies. They know city cant do jack shit.
Click to expand...
100...
 
homerdog said:
Martin Samuel article in the Sunday Times today, it's pretty obvious what he thinks of Richard Masters and his co-conspirators at the PL:


What we are being asked to concede is that... Manchester City’s move from punchline to headline bringing with it some of the greatest football and footballers we have seen, plus the greatest manager, was without merit. The very thing that made the Premier League the best is being redrawn as its biggest failing.
Click to expand...

Superb article by the only intelligent and unbiased journalist in the country.
 
jimmygrimblesboots said:
Part of Everton's panel that dished out the 10 pt punishment was a director at West Ham at the time they paid Sheff Utd compensation for signing tevez & mascherano , hardly an endorsment of their knowledge or impartiality.
We have a Gooner season ticket holder on the panel deciding our fate , there is no such thing as independent it is quite obvious the Gooner wants at least a 10 point dedecution for us so the Goons can win the title.
Couldnt give a shite if he is a KC or MBE or Royalty like everyone in this world and will have bias and favouritism , its human nature.
The panel should consist of non football individuals , with no connection with any football club , so they can view the evidence from a business point of view , it is not a sporting charge/agenda we are accused of we have been accused of financial fraud.
Click to expand...
Paladin said:
There's no kangaroo court. The PL has appointed a commission to hear their allegations, and the commission is headed by a very experienced KC, Murray Rosen. He will recruit two experts to hear the evidence with him, and the PL will appoint counsel to lead their case. City have already appointed counsel to present their defence. There are loads of experienced KCs involved on all sides. It won't be a stitch up with a predetermined outcome.
Click to expand...
I would like to agree but the Everton case does not fill me with confidence. The chairman had a clear interest in a points deduction.
In our case, Rosen is not just an ST holder: he is a prominent member of one of our main accusers. Out of all the KCs available, how come the PL chose him?
 
Invisible Man's Bandage said:
Can you give an example of an organisation getting billions for reputational damage?

Although admittedly no legal expert, unlike most on here, I'd imagine an organisation would have to prove some quantifiable loss to gain any compensation. Other than a few ruffled feathers I can't imagine Etihad or others could actually present a viable case.
Click to expand...
?..?
All defamation cases are about reputational damage. The more quantifiable it is, the higher the likely damages, but you don’t have to prove a specific amount.
 
wolviedinho said:
City would be wise to bury this case until a regulator can be introduced.

3 people judging the future of a club? Nah

No bias? Nah

It is a commission payed for by the Premier! Nah

It’s all a lot of crap anyway.

Don’t give them the chance to fuck us over, keep it going round and round in legal paper until their rotten head falls off.

The concept of FFP or the new sustainability rules need ripped up and thrown out. It now evident why they rules where brought in. The football community is largely bent tho so nothing will be done until the government intervene.

For any rag/dipper/arse/Everton fan reading. City have not been charged with FFP since the Uefa case when the goal posts changed.

Everton admitted guilt for breaking sustainability rules buying crap after crap which is nobody’s business but their own. If they had of spent the money well and won a trophy they would be coming after Everton anyway.

The rags have been fined for failing ffp.

The dippers hid their overspend in a fake stadium.

Arsenal/Rwanda nothing to see here!! City built the emirates with player transfers and then after nearly 20 years of being shit gave you a manager and a few players. So suck my blue balls!

If anyone takes the time to actually look at our charges you will see that its not 115 financial breaches unless thats what you call long grass or non compliance!

I genuinely mean this, fuck the premier. They have tried to destroy city. I would prefer we didn’t participate in this fake competition anymore…Now that we have completed football -:)
Click to expand...
1. We are not accused directly of overspending but of false accounting to mislead those assessing our compliance with ffp. The PL may try to quantify and show we have overspent by £x.

2. I doubt the new regulator would “take over“ our case if it were still running.
 
This bit from that Martin Samuel article is interesting...sorry if it has already been mentioned/discussed

"Jermain Defoe’s transfer from Tottenham to Portsmouth in 2008 is now being reinvestigated over the alleged use of an illegal agent.
That carried a points deduction when Luton Town did it but, at the time, the FA did not follow through on Defoe. In 2009-10, when the investigation was taking place, Tottenham finished three points above Manchester City to qualify for the Champions League. Can it now be argued that had Tottenham been deducted points, then City would have been in the Champions League a year earlier, their balance sheet might have looked different — Tottenham got to the quarter-finals — and they might not be facing so many charges? How far do we want to go back?"
 
IcriedwhenTueartleft said:
This bit from that Martin Samuel article is interesting...sorry if it has already been mentioned/discussed

"Jermain Defoe’s transfer from Tottenham to Portsmouth in 2008 is now being reinvestigated over the alleged use of an illegal agent.
That carried a points deduction when Luton Town did it but, at the time, the FA did not follow through on Defoe. In 2009-10, when the investigation was taking place, Tottenham finished three points above Manchester City to qualify for the Champions League. Can it now be argued that had Tottenham been deducted points, then City would have been in the Champions League a year earlier, their balance sheet might have looked different — Tottenham got to the quarter-finals — and they might not be facing so many charges? How far do we want to go back?"
Click to expand...
To make it more relevant and fair , I’d say we can go back as far as chewing gum whisky nose tenure.
 
KS55 said:
?..?
All defamation cases are about reputational damage. The more quantifiable it is, the higher the likely damages, but you don’t have to prove a specific amount.
Click to expand...
I was questioning if there was an example where an injured party had received 'billions'. If the club or one of its partners sued the PL (which I highly doubt) then it's unlikely that astronomical damages would be awarded.
 
We should create a Petition to request a debate in parliament as to whether the Premier League's leadership are fit to be running the Premier League. They have clearly ducked or failed to deal with a range of allegations into the red cartel clubs and Spurs. They have totally mismanaged the case against Everton and there are now serious doubts as to how truly impartial the tribunal for City's case is likely to be.
 
As I said in a previous post, I cannot see how City can have a fair hearing when every Tom, Dick and Harriet across the media has already pronounced us guilty and passed sentence.

There is a reason why, in proper trials before the King's courts, the media are not allowed to do this. Imagine being accused of (say) murder and every paper, every online source spent months saying how guilty you are and how you deserve 50 years inside. You would not stand a chance before a jury, which is why this sort of trial by media is illegal and called contempt of court. The judge would throw the case out of court if such a prejudice arose.

The process is a fucking disgrace.
 
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