PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[eyalluvitt]

I've been doing a bit of forensic work of my own.

Stefan and others think that 'Magic Hat' may be an American lawyer / legal student. However, in his exchange with 'Nick Harris' he refers to the good people of Bluemoon as 'cretinous arseholes'.

Busted, as if he was a Septic he'd refer to us as assholes...

Slightly overweight assholes with bad teeth and alcohol problems, I’d take extremely personally

 

[eyalluvitt]

If he was asked how these allegations going back over a decade had any impact on the last 2 seasons he would be stumped. Pathetic excuse making for coming up short.

Most people think it’s recent FFP failures, 2009 doesn’t compute as most were still breast feeding back then

 

[Elbow beards]

I'm confused, if this magic hat bloke is saying much the same as Harris, why is he arguing with him?

 

[ysmsa]

You need to change your name to Columbo. ;-)

Definitely get a job with the Hawai 115 0

 

[There is a Light]

Saying that, he did get one thing right. He has accurately identified Magic Hat as a know-nothing chancer. Yet another Johnny-come-lately red-top fan who doesn't know his arse from his elbow and thinks that if he can write long enough paragraphs and post enough pictures, people will think they're smart, much like that Swedish Ramble con artist.

Almost sesquipedalian some might say.

Agree 100% about Harris’ nature, that’s confirmation that he is a **** of the highest order and City bias genuinely doesn’t even slightly come into that assessment.

 

[Bez]

So in all seriousness is this nick the magic fella or not? Is there anyway we can trace his IP to find location?

Rui Pinto's your man...

 

[blueyorkie]

You're talking through your arse(nal) here. This is absolute nonsense.

First, the 5-year limitation period is in UEFA's FFP rules, and nothing to do with CAS.

Second, we were cleared by CAS of the substantive charge levelled against us by UEFA's CFCB, which is that our commercial sponsorships were disguised equity funding. The initial press release from CAS, on 13th July was quite explicit on that point.

Third, the time-barred element of the case (the Etisalat sponsorship) was examined by CAS, who cleared it as being done properly. This oft-repeated claim by the hard-of-thinking, that we only got off due to time-barring, is a complete myth.

Finally, although it's not stated explicitly that there's a time limitation in the PL rules, it is stated that English law applies, which means there's a 6-year limitation period. They can go back further if there's evidence of criminality or fraud though, which is effectively what we've been accused of. But if the PL's Independent Commission finds no evidence of fraudulent activity then pretty well every part of the PL's case falls as time-barred. And if there's no evidence of fraud, then it's highly unlikely we did much wrong at all anyway, which is a double whammy to our detractors, like you.

They say 3-word alliteration is a powerful communication trick so I'm going to use that technique and call you a thick Tarquin twat.

You’re on fire Colin

 

[Brightwell Bros.]

I'm confused, if this magic hat bloke is saying much the same as Harris, why is he arguing with him?

NH (rightly imo) thinks he's rehashing old news as new evidence, and thinks his interpretation of the evidence is naive at best and ludicrous at worst. He wants to know what his experience is based on the fact that the hat fella thinks the emails will be enough to secure a guilty verdict when anyone close to the case and/or familiar with how these things work are adamant they won't be.

 

[wolviedinho]

Rui Pinto's your man...

Locked up mate. Let’s hope his time inside is not enjoyable.

 

[lasereyes]

You're reading that 'the mask has slipped' into all that? Sorry but that's just paranoid on your part.

For what it's worth I think if you've got money to invest in your own football team you should be able to do so however you choose fit. The point I was trying to make was that at the end of the day, talk of relegations is wide of the mark and that my feeling is that a deal will be cut behind the scenes so that everyone can move on. The reasons for this are 2-fold. Firstly so City can move forward so it will be in their interests to bring it to a close ASAP. But secondly it's hardly in the PL's interests for City to be found guilty of the most severe charges. PL football is a highly marketable brand - not going to look good if its prize asset of the last decade gets slapped with massive penalties and makes it look like the PL has been presiding over a dogs dinner. Money talks at the end of the day in big business.

"it's hardly in the PL's interest for City to be found guilty of the most severe charges"

Why would the "PL's interests" even enter into it? Let's start with "Are City guilty"? You have clearly concluded they are. Can I ask on what basis and what evidence?