I think we cooperated initially when FFP started and they did the dirty on us by moving the goalposts right before we posted our accounts and did us anyway. Since then we have treated them with the total and utter contempt they deserveLook I haven't read this entire thread (who has?). But I've sort of followed this farrago at a distance. Just read @Chris in London 's excellent summary of the state of play. Now something I've never been terribly clear on: in what way, on what grounds, and according to what specific charges does the basis of the PL's case against us differ from UEFA's?
Unless it be that we haven't particularly cooperated with the PL, any more than we cooperated with UEFA (so we're likely to get a hefty fine, or at worst a points deduction).
Or have I get it every which way wrong?
As for the non-cooperation, it has always seemed to me like this, according to the information I've read like everyone else. If a copper came up and arrested you in the street, and took you down the station, and the Detective Superintendent or whoever else said, “You're charged with this. We believe you're guilty, you are guilty, and you are now going to help us establish your guilt”… well, you wouldn't exactly feel cooperative, would you? Why would you cooperate when a) you're firmly convinced of your innocence and b) there is a presumption of innocence until proven guilty?
And our Premier league badge was too big.Well one of our charges was for having long grass, so you never know :)
Was that clause 11?I think we cooperated initially when FFP started and they did the dirty on us by moving the goalposts right before we posted our accounts and did us anyway. Since then we have treated them with the total and utter contempt they deserve
Rangers were almost destroyed by this kind of kangaroo court full of haters, ten years later it was deemed a malicious prosecution but the damage to the club finances and playing squad were enormousAt the same point in the UEFA case...
"Why the fuck would UEFA go to this extreme" without thinking they have proof?
... but the difference then was that we had recourse to genuinely independent arbitration in CAS.
My big worry is just how independent will the IC and a second IC (appeal process) be?
I know Stefan has tried to reassure us on this point but I still worry.
It feels like another Prime doc, 'All In or Nothing'.I want it to be all in or nothing. We are either guilty and receive the punishment that goes with that or we are cleared completely and can finally move on.
We take a fine or a point and the cheat accusations stay with us forever.
Very true, it’s a lose/lose scenario for everyoneEither way it doesn’t look good, they accuse the vice president of Abu Dhabi of industrial strength fraud and throw a £4 billion asset out of the Premier League. Other way is City destroy the Premier League in court leaving public opinion in uproar as City ‘got off’.
Rangers were almost destroyed by this kind of kangaroo court full of haters, ten years later it was deemed a malicious prosecution but the damage to the club finances and playing squad were enormous
missing the point, we could suffer a similar fate of having our income and playing staff decimated because of spurious allegations by very bitter hate filled peopleI don't know why this keeps needing to be repeated but situations with Rangers and what we're going through aren't comparable in any shape or form.
Rangers FC were liquidated, ceased to exist. They had to start again and were voted in to league 2 by member clubs as the level which the new club would begin that process.
There was no damage to the playing squad because there wasn't one. Players were no longer under contract because the company which they originally signed with no longer existed.
The two situations and allegations are worlds apart.
You can't have too many wet fannies.I see the wet fanny calling others wet fannies-brigade are out.