PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[bluenova]

The questions he should be asking is why does anybody need to be stopped and from what?

Underneath his analysis on twitter someone asks if it's the smaller clubs/PL trying to reign in the big six.

He actually says this is only going to affect "one or two of the big six", and says that it's being driven by "one of the big six". Given who voted, it's either Liverpool, Arsenal, or Spurs. Which isn't much of a surprise.

 

[wolviedinho]

Does this include bonuses ?

Nope. That comes straight from Mansour’s secret “got away with it” account.

Keep up mate -:)

 

[halfcenturyup]

Wouldn’t the SFO only become involved if the PL handed them evidence of Serious wrongdoing at this stage? Plus, would the PL would be obliged to hand over any evidence or not?

I am guessing the decision to launch, or not, a SFO investigation would depend on an ongoing assessment of what the evidence is? What do we know so far? We know the evidence presented at CAS by Uefa and the overwhelming counter-evidence from the club that led to release from all the charges except non-cooperation which isn't a fraud issue. We know the PL case is originally based on the same evidence as the Uefa charges (although the PL may have some more from the club's books). Apart from that, nothing new. Not enough by a long chalk for the SFO to consider raiding anyone, imho.

Also, the PL is contractually obliged to keep the disciplinary process confidential. They can't just call the SFO, at least until the process is over.

On the other hand, if the PL was raided in an evidence gathering exercise, they would presumably have to comply. Not that that is going to happen for the above reasons, imo.

 

[Dribble]

Hard to understand your point(s). You are fixated on irrelevant semantics and the absence of public statements. As I said earlier, read the FAQ.

You've not considered a word I've said. I've stepped away from the semantics long ago, so I could gain a better global overview.

I find it increasingly difficult to get past why the authorities haven't drawn down on City, & also the non-legal language the PL have carefully used when referencing City & these alleged breaches.

You've not proven your Premier League "charges" claim, nor have you considered City’s situation outside your personal opinion, which is your right.

On a positive note, there are two very distinct ways & approaches of viewing these breaches & hearings. Hopefully City fans have greater clarity through our discussions to consider both opposing views so they can draw their own conclusions.

I've already digested the FAQ's, but I'll give you an analogy off the top of my head to consider...

There's an argument whether Santa Claus's original costume was red or green. Both parties bring their evidence & spiritedly argue their views & opinions.

However, the point both are missing is Santa is a fictional character, so both points are moot in the big scheme of things anyway. That's me stepping away from the semantics, & leaving others to argue red or green.

Also consider why City are in favour of a statutory Independent Regulator for English Football (IREF), & the PL are bitterly opposed?

If we had something to hide from the statutory bodies (HMRC, SFO, Police) & the UK Criminal/Civil Law Courts, our stated position that we favour a statutory IREF body, belies any liability with the industrial scale fraud we're essentially being accused of.

Where I'm sure we can both agree, is a wish for a favourable outcome for City, & an end to the witchunts against us. )(

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

 

[Dribble]

If we’ve provided irrefutable evidence how can we have not co-operated?

I think the sticking point maybe the PL (& UEFA before them) wanting access to ADUG, Etisalat & Etihad's internal accounts & bank statements to prove our liability.

All three are outside Europe's jurisdiction, so I'd suppose they may have asked City to provide the material, City told them to get it themselves, & UEFA/PL have been summarily fucked off by the other parties concerned.

This is why the PL & UEFA only have the hacked emails to go on, & can only complete their evidence with suppositions.

Accusing us is one thing. Providing concrete irrefutable evidence is another thing altogether, hence why no one outside of the football ruling bodies seems in the slightest bit arsed.

 

[Didsbury Dave]

Hard to understand your point(s). You are fixated on irrelevant semantics and the absence of public statements. As I said earlier, read the FAQ.

Got to be honest, the sight of you patiently batting off some internet bloviator whose legal vocabulary includes "Red Top Mafia" and "Spuds" had made me smile today.

 

[flb]

Underneath his analysis on twitter someone asks if it's the smaller clubs/PL trying to reign in the big six.

He actually says this is only going to affect "one or two of the big six", and says that it's being driven by "one of the big six". Given who voted, it's either Liverpool, Arsenal, or Spurs. Which isn't much of a surprise.

Seeing as it’s us and the rags with stand out bigger turnover and revenue , my money is on the jumped up shits that spurs are , such an over inflated image of themselves , the biggest fucking myth in English football.

 

[Stoned Rose]

You've not considered a word I've said. I've stepped away from the semantics long ago, so I could gain a better global overview.

I find it increasingly difficult to get past why the authorities haven't drawn down on City, & also the non-legal language the PL have carefully used when referencing City & these alleged breaches.

You've not proven your Premier League "charges" claim, nor have you considered City’s situation outside your personal opinion, which is your right.

On a positive note, there are two very distinct ways & approaches of viewing these breaches & hearings. Hopefully City fans have greater clarity through our discussions to consider both opposing views so they can draw their own conclusions.

I've already digested the FAQ's, but I'll give you an analogy off the top of my head to consider...

There's an argument whether Santa Claus's original costume was red or green. Both parties bring their evidence & spiritedly argue their views & opinions.

However, the point both are missing is Santa is a fictional character, so both points are moot in the big scheme of things anyway. That's me stepping away from the semantics, & leaving others to argue red or green.

Also consider why City are in favour of a statutory Independent Regulator for English Football (IREF), & the PL are bitterly opposed?

If we had something to hide from the statutory bodies (HMRC, SFO, Police) & the UK Criminal/Civil Law Courts, our stated position that we favour a statutory IREF body, belies any liability with the industrial scale fraud we're essentially being accused of.

Where I'm sure we can both agree, is a wish for a favourable outcome for City, & an end to the witchunts against us. )(

Santa is a blue and therefore dresses as such. Thought we all knew that ;)

 

[Dribble]

Santa is a blue and therefore dresses as such. Thought we all knew that ;)

At this rate, he'll end up with more colours than Joseph's Technicolour Dreamcoat... :-)