PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Can I just say we were saying leaks from premier league uefa or whoever were showing they couldn’t be trusted and weren’t able to hold their piss or mischief making,last couple of weeks we have had people purportedly with inside information ( leaks )from City so what’s the difference ..think I’ll hold fire until the club itself comes and says something..
 
I'm confident about my information that the PL want some sort of settlement.

@gordondaviesmoustache has talked about the use of the phrase "...will be resolved..." alluding to a settlement rather than going full speed ahead with a hearing based on a weak case.

Alberto Galassi's interview also suggests that the club feels it's on the verge of a successful outcome.

And I've always been confident and maintained these alleged breaches are very weak, and have either been rejected by CAS or considered not worth bothering with by UEFA.

It's also possible that the IC has come to the conclusion that these breaches aren't considered fraudulent and therefore outside the statutory 6- year limit under UK law.

1000000951.gif
 
Can I just say we were saying leaks from premier league uefa or whoever were showing they couldn’t be trusted and weren’t able to hold their piss or mischief making,last couple of weeks we have had people purportedly with inside information ( leaks )from City so what’s the difference ..think I’ll hold fire until the club itself comes and says something..
The leaks from UEFA came from Masters. His long time contact Tariq Panja was the recipient.
CORRECTION . Parry was the source. Brain fart to write Masters. Apologies.
 
Last edited:

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.