PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[TheThirdDeano]

View attachment 110546

It’s vomit inducing, stomach churning and a complete kick in the teeth for the fans I agree mate. I just wouldn’t be surprised if it happens. Crazier things have happened!

 

[LeonardoDaVnci]

If you ignore the noise from the parasites looking for engagement and sound bites everything points to us being completely cleared.

United are getting in their early with their comments, and whether directly involved or not, wouldn’t have touched Omar with a barge pole if we weren’t due to be cleared.
I don’t want it but I’m also 99% sure we’ll stadium share as an upper management ‘water under the bridge’ moment.

I wouldn’t be surprised if Liverpool started cozying up to us soon as well

The decision to allow the rags to ground share will ultimately be down to local residents and councillors. There are legal challenges on going between them and the new Arena management. Thats why the Arena have had licence applications refused. They also successfully campaigned for the Eastlands Resident Parking scheme which has affected at lot of blues. There's no chance whatsoever they will accept another 30 odd rag match days for the 3 or 4 years on top of City games, Arena events, Academy games and summer concerts. If the rags want to ground share they should try Bolton or Wigan, the Ethihad is a total non starter.

 

[Inter Me Nan]

It’s vomit inducing, stomach churning and a complete kick in the teeth for the fans I agree mate. I just wouldn’t be surprised if it happens. Crazier things have happened!

Yeah wouldn't suprise me either!

 

[eastmanc]

How much were Liverpool successfully sued for by other teams for the English team European competition ban following Heysel?

Yeah but that's Liverpool, if you know what I mean.

 

[TheThirdDeano]

The decision to allow the rags to ground share will ultimately be down to local residents and councillors. There are legal challenges on going between them and the new Arena management. Thats why the Arena have had licence applications refused. There's no chance whatsoever they will accept another 30 odd rag match days for the 3 or 4 years on top of City games, Arena events, Academy games and summer concerts. If the Rags want to ground share they should try Bolton or Wigan, the Ethihad is a non starter.

You’re absolutely right pal, in theory.

where there’s a will, there’s a way and usual I’m Sure it’ll all come down to money

 

[uwe rosler 28]

If you ignore the noise from the parasites looking for engagement and sound bites everything points to us being completely cleared.

United are getting in their early with their comments, and whether directly involved or not, wouldn’t have touched Omar with a barge pole if we weren’t due to be cleared.
I don’t want it but I’m also 99% sure we’ll stadium share as an upper management ‘water under the bridge’ moment.

I wouldn’t be surprised if Liverpool started cozying up to us soon as well

Don't see how we stadium share rags have 55k season ticket holders that would have to be dropped to 40k if they were to share with us.

 

[KS55]

Time limitation is purely a civil law thing. There is no limitation in criminal law.

I think :)

I seem to remember a time bar for minor offences is now in operation.

 

[calum down]

why do people keep saying QC?

 

[waspish]

It’s vomit inducing, stomach churning and a complete kick in the teeth for the fans I agree mate. I just wouldn’t be surprised if it happens. Crazier things have happened!

Yep think premier want in say 20 years time it be all happy clappy premier football by fans like they have in American football!

All the new chanting rules match day "experience" to and other rules brought in is pointing at that! They won't the aggressive fan out the clubs!

 

[halfcenturyup]

So well done for deliberately ignoring half my post.

I ignored half your post because you subsequently admitted you misunderstood what I was saying. I replied to the post where I thought you may appreciate some further comment.

You made a claim you cannot substantiate not me but let’s ignoring it.

We have danced this dance before. It isn't my job to bring you to the water. There is plenty to drink if you check with Mr Google. But for the record, I didn't make a "claim". I made a statement of, what I am fairly sure, fact. It's easy for you to check.

As I say let’s assume they do not have a duty to report.

Don’t you think they would just because they should and to stop any subsequent bad publicity ? Wouldn’t the SFO investigate off its own bat for the same reason ?

No, at least not yet and, no, at least not yet.

I think in later posts by you or others it’s Ben suggested they do not have the evidence to deal with the SFO yet but surely they have to have something to bring the case to the panel ?

Imho, they only have questions unanswered by sufficient evidence to allay their allegations. It's as simple as that. Exacerbated by the fact that they know such evidence exists because some of it was presented to CAS. So they either had to conclude an unfinished investigation, or proceed to the IC. Rock or a hard place, both carefully placed by the club. For info, I don't think they have any chance of having the evidence they would need, unless the club has been hugely negligent, because the evidence they would need (if it exists at all, which I doubt) isn't under their jurisdiction.

Do you not think someone else would ? Harris Delany Liverpool United a fan a journalists or pundit ? They dare not even use the word why ?

I don't care.

You say that the SFO etc won’t get involved when there is an active civil case but I think it is more the other way round civil case stops SFO get involved. It’s a crime certainly in regulated industries to tip people off to an investigation. Now it might be that no investigation so no tipping off and you might argue the original tipping off was done by der sperigel. But by affectively calling city frauds you have tipped them of to potential investigation by authorities and if they had done something wrong the need to cover one’s tracks

I have no idea what your point is here.

You say they haven’t chucked out of the word fraud but they still could have used the word and perhaps should have for clarity

Once again, they have used the correct terminology, and only the correct terminology, required to activate the next phase in the process. Why would they do anything else? For clarity? That's a laugh.

I find it interesting that they have created rules that require the breaking of the law but won’t use the correct legal term and even they think people will break the law in order to get round down rules on spending in order to buy another over priced player or two despite having passed fit and proper persons test.

They have used the correct terminology for this process.

I don’t dispute that it’s complicated case as such or that it will take ages my point about time was more the initial investigation. To prove or even bring to tribunal such a case you would need a smoking gun if you had smoking gun you would not take so long to bring to tribunal

Investigations once started, have to be completed. You can't stop it half way through because you think you have found a "smoking gun". If you did and it turned out your gun was a dud you would be fucked and you would potentially miss other issues that were more important. Once the investigation started , it had to be completed. Why it took fours years is anyone's guess but it was delayed by a couple of appeals that took some time.

So we both agree that the premier league do not think they have a case I take it we both agree the accusations amount to fraud your just arguing that the lack of anything goin got connect to such an allegation does not prove anything.

I don't agree that the PL don't think they don't have a case. My hypothesis is that the PL has a case to refer to the IC because they haven't seen the evidence needed to allay their concerns over the alleged rule breaches. Exacerbated by the fact that they know such evidence exists, at least in part, as it was presented to CAS. So they have case to go to the IC, but they also know they won't "win" it, imho.

Why do you think they decided to go with a case they don’t believe in ?

I explained that in a previous post. I can do it again in a DM if you really want to hear it.

Would you make some predictions as to the outcome ?

The club will be exonerated of all the most serious issues and, I have a feeling that non-compliance will be out as well, maybe just leaving acting in bad faith (by withholding evidence from third parties) and some incorrect disclosures to the PL. Small fine and/or a light sporting sanction, suspended.

Thanks for your considered response

Well, you are very welcome.