PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Prestwich_Blue said:
Sorry - I didn't realise it was you I was replying to. The point I was (somewhat longwindedly) trying to make was that we could still be found to have breached some of the 115 charges, but not acted fraudulently or in an attempt to mislead. So maybe acted within the letter of the law but not the spirit.
Click to expand...
If there’s no fraud or attempt to mislead the limitation period is 6 years
 
wonder what the development is next week on our case leaked earlier this week.
hope its not only a date shared for something like October, November this year.
 
Coatigan said:
I am not sure many or any are suggesting otherwise. But let's acknowledge that it is a very black or white view based on an ultimate all or nothing verdict.

There could I would assume be greys or different extents there though, with outcomes reflective of that.
Click to expand...

Think of it this way. If you are flying across the Atlantic and one wing falls off the plane, it is exceedingly likely that you will die.

But the chances of it happening in the first place are very very slim.
 
Blue Johnny Lee said:
I thought the same. Clearly got a few of the bitter ex staff leaking shit, as I suspect the Premier League have.

Snakey bastards
Click to expand...
It was part of the Der Spiegel hack I think. Or was produced at another hearing specifically related to the issue of youth players, where we received a two-year ban on signing young players. Harris is a fantasist who likes to pretend he's getting information from club insiders. He quoted me as a 'club insider' once.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
It was part of the Der Spiegel hack I think. Or was produced at another hearing specifically related to the issue of youth players, where we received a two-year ban on signing young players. Harris is a fantasist who likes to pretend he's getting information from club insiders. He quoted me as a 'club insider' once.
Click to expand...
Grass ;)
 
Sorry if this question as been asked before.If City are cleared of all charges.Do the premier league have to cover the clubs legal costs?
 
True blue manc said:
Sorry if this question as been asked before.If City are cleared of all charges.Do the premier league have to cover the clubs legal costs?
Click to expand...
I don't think so mate, this isn't a conventional court so those rules don't apply, but I'm no expert on legal matters.

Maybe City could sue them (if found innocent of fraud) for damage to their reputation.
 
cheekybids said:
Shots fired…
Click to expand...
Yea and not very subtle either. Dosent look like a club leader on his knees waiting for the fatal shot. If anything, he looks emboldened and determined to keep the club at the top.

This blue train ain’t stopping at platform 115. All aboard…

All the big wigs present at this award ceremony. I would loved to have been partial to the charges discussions.

Pep needs a new contract just to keep the piss boiling.
 
Someone please explain to me how is this lobbying??? Read the request for
Minutes and do see the issue why media have right to get it? Wit current situation we have and our support for independent regulators known fact it’s bizarre tbh. If anyone can shed light apparently it’s cover up of 115 baffled.

 
Protein Junkie said:
Reporting In from spending way too much time on social media defending our club.
Todays theme from R&D fans-
City had two of the three man panel at CAS and that’s why we had the verdict overturned.
I asked for evidence and the reply was “there’s a report on it”
Oh f@ck - guilty as charged then and don’t get me started on time barred.
Click to expand...

Well we'll just have to buy two of the PL panel as well then.

Just like we bought all our titles. Yawn.
 
Blueroses said:
Someone please explain to me how is this lobbying??? Read the request for
Minutes and do see the issue why media have right to get it? Wit current situation we have and our support for independent regulators known fact it’s bizarre tbh. If anyone can shed light apparently it’s cover up of 115 baffled.

Click to expand...


Ask him if he’s got the minutes for Masters interview with Dipper & Rags.
 
projectriver said:
The PL have made the massive claim around sponsors (as UEFA did) and the case is primarily about that. The IC will take a dim view of the PL not being able to make out that claim which will infect the rest.
Click to expand...
An interesting and important point. In a bench trial, don‘t piss off the judge.
If the PL really don’t have a smoking gun, they will be on a sticky wicket ab
initio.
 
Cityfan1977 said:
I just don't see what is wrong or suspicious here, I knew Harris had a loose screw but this is stretching it.
be3da2a8b9aafcabddd38704034f9090.jpg
Click to expand...
As this isn’t about the charges will make a quick comment on this not about the validity of the claim made by Harris but when we , Chelsea, were charged by FIFA and subsequently subject to a transfer ban a number of the youngsters listed in the charges were never signed by us but had a trail or trials ( plural) and in some instances had only ever appeared in tournaments.
The FA were subject to a charge and fine over this as they had approved matters
Please don’t think I am saying that the accusations have legs but signing youngsters from abroad is far more complex than many , and I was in that number, always thought
 
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