PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[cheekybids]

Basically it is saying there is no way city, the Sheik or etihad have committed fraud on any level if etihad are having their accounts open to the public.

As GDM says, checkmate cunts.

And then read the comments lol

 

[hello]

The head of Hamas is a better mate of mine than Nick Harris is.

Bloody hell so you’re the dipper that acts as middleman funnelling Hamas funds into liverpools shirt sponsorship;)

 

[halfcenturyup]

Thanks for sharing. Interesting content, but what an utterly crass headline title for this article. Total clickbait material.

"Man City owners hatch new plan to combat threat of Premier League's 115 financial charges"

Surely the IPO decision is up to Etihad's owners, not Man City's, and secondly if there is nowt to hide, which I am sure is the case, our evidence will be enough to combat the ridiculous charges from the PL.

The article was clearly planted, though. Much smarter than a new statement. And the timing!

Or Mullock reads Bluemoon. The implication of the Etihad IPO was shared on here weeks ago.

 

[halfcenturyup]

View attachment 111495

I like the look of that, might be tempted, just to simmer a bit of piss.

Daft cunts.

I like the way the counter goes from 004 to 115 to 006. Intellectual.

Or maybe it's going from 115 to 000 in view of Mullock's latest. It's a Countdown shirt :)

 

[halfcenturyup]

And then read the comments lol

People with a real understanding of legal process. This is what happens when you listen all day to Simon Jordan.

 

[Chi-town blues]

City sponsors' plan deals big twist amid Premier League's 115 financial charges

Manchester City are facing 115 charges from the Premier League for breaking financial regulations but the club's owners could potentially navigate the charges with a fresh idea

www.mirror.co.uk

lets fucking go ..

 

[NZBlue]

Hang on, hang on not so quick. We don’t even know where he shops yet…….

Or where he parks his bike

 

[KS55]

Yes, that's right. If a club left before the bill is passed, their leaving couldn't be prevented (unless the wording is changed) but they wouldn't get a licence so they couldn't play in England.

Wouldn’t be enforced by the court.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Wouldn’t be enforced by the court.

The withholding of a licence? If they are playing in a prohibited competition as defined in the bill?

 

[KS55]

The withholding of a licence? If they are playing in a prohibited competition as defined in the bill?

The fact that something is in a Bill/Act doesn’t mean it is automatically enforceable at court if, for example it amounts to a restraint of trade or otherwise is against public policy. On such niceties are lawyer’s fortunes made, See Pannick and the prorogation of parliament.
Parliament (via treasury counsel) needs to be very aware of the wording of the bill to overcome certain possible objections. This issue is meat and drink to Human Rights lawyers.