But you seem to have fundamentally misunderstood the situation - the alleged breaches are breaches of rules but they would also be breaches of various laws if proven - serious breaches. Put criminal law to one side (although they could also be breaches of the Fraud Act etc if ever charged and proven), there would be equivalent civil laws relating to almost every breach aside from the charges relating to cooperation with the PL.Well most can see this process for what it is. We could've had terms of agreement to ensure we washed up our tea mugs after use at the Etihad. Technically it's an agreement between two parties, but I'd love them to take us to a civil court on this basis.
Not washing up our tea mugs maybe against the PL's "rules", but it's not illegal in UK Law. This is the crucial point being overlooked.
You can worry yourself to death if you choose to, but I trust in City & the club believe they have irrefutable evidence to prove we're not in breach of the PL's private members club "rules".
According to reports, we've issued warnings to several people spinning the "charges" "case" "legal" & "guilty" narrative. This is where City stand, & I stand & agree with our club 100%. It's a pile of bullshit designed to halt our progress by any means necessary.
In effect, City themselves said this at CAS and will have said it again to the PL.
But fortunately the charges are not of dirty tea mugs because the actual charges require far more cogent evidence and are, therefore, far harder to prove.
So I'm not sure it is worth others following your logic on this particular matter even if you are right in your support of the club.
PS City won't have issued any warnings about any of those words (to be honest, I doubt they have written to anyone in the media recently on this stuff). They are "charges", it is a "case", it is "legal" and if the IC finds against City whether people say "guilty" or that the charges are "proven" is semantics.
Last edited: