PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

bluemc said:
Being a journalist and daring to publicly look down that rabbit hole would see you:

Banned from any events/press conferences involving the rags, Liverpool, Spurs, Arsenal and potentially others. Damaging your ability to grow, network and report.

Never invited onto Sky Sports, Talksport, any BBC media to present the "other" side.

You'd be left with writing stories on what Dickie Masters would call "smaller" clubs and relying on social media to share content. And we all know what a cesspit social media is.

Unfortunately, we're in the clickbait era. Journalism is dead.

Fanning the flames of CHEATING CITY and pandering to the red shirts for ad revenue is what the industry has become.
Click to expand...
Maybe one of them coming close to retirement will be brave/smart enough to write the alternate view and take a nice payoff into the sunset!
past journalists - now sensationalists
 
nmc said:
Just contacted the BBC to ask them for the source of Dan Roan’s quote "no conclusive evidence that they disguised funding from their owner as sponsorship" - because I can’t find that in the 93 page CAS Summary. I suspect the arse made it up.
Click to expand...
Followed you in..

YOUR COMPLAINT:

Dan Roan Clickbait bias 

I read Dan Roan's article about the forthcoming investigative hearing between Manchester City and the Premier League. It seems to be full of errors which are presumably left in for effect.

1. It is not a trial, it is a hearing. There is a big difference.
2. He uses the phrase "No conclusive evidence" to refer to the judgement of CAS in the 2022 case between the same club and the European governing body. Why has he chosen to insert the word "conclusive" when the actual CAS adjudication used the phrase "no evidence" 12 times. Does including the word "conclusive" sound a bit more sinister??
3. Dan informs us that the Independent Commission has "limitless powers". No they do not. For example they cannot demand access to the books of third party sponsors which would surely be a key part of any criminal investigation. Neither can they demand to see bank accounts for club owners for example. Once again, Dan makes no attempt to explain the type of cogent evidence that will be required to get the outcome he so clearly hopes for.
4. Dan also says that there can be no time-barring applied to this investigative hearing. Again that is wholly wrong. The Premier League and it's rules are still bound by the law of the land which has a statute of limitations of 6 years which in this case will most likely apply to many of the allegations. Time barring will apply unless the Premier League's legal team can show cogent evidence (that phrase again) that dishonesty and potentially fraud have been involved in the preparation of accounts. This information regarding basic legal process is easy to find and I find it shocking, although not surprising, that the BBC's lead reporter has either not bothered to appraise himself of such basic facts or just chosen to mislead his audience.


Once again the BBC's impartiality is in question. I am aware that Mr Roan has previously been barred from the Etihad for inaccurate reporting in the past. Is he abusing his position to exact revenge?
 
The Light Was Yellow Sir said:
What I most remember about that day was that both teams agreed to not have a sponsors name on their shirts, to mark the occasion.
Then, out comes the GPC, in full chewing gum mode, as described, alongside Sven and the players, all holding hands with a child. City players had kids with the rags away kit whist the home side obviously had them in a home kit.
Never one to miss an opportunity, every child had a kit with AIG emblazoned on the front. Really got to me did that and, truth be told, still does..



View attachment 131575
Click to expand...
And yet City's actual mascot that day (in the keeper kit) had all the branding on her kit covered up with green tape. Those classless, opportunistic fuckers never miss a trick.
 
The Light Was Yellow Sir said:
What I most remember about that day was that both teams agreed to not have a sponsors name on their shirts, to mark the occasion.
Then, out comes the GPC, in full chewing gum mode, as described, alongside Sven and the players, all holding hands with a child. City players had kids with the rags away kit whist the home side obviously had them in a home kit.
Never one to miss an opportunity, every child had a kit with AIG emblazoned on the front. Really got to me did that and, truth be told, still does..



View attachment 131575
Click to expand...
What makes it worse is that the City mascot at the front with Dunne was wearing the special issue City kit that didn't have the name of our sponsor on. If United were going to do it properly then all their mascots should've been wearing the same sponsor-less shirts as their players just like our mascot was.
 
Dubai Blue said:
And yet City's actual mascot that day (in the keeper kit) had all the branding on her kit covered up with green tape. Those classless, opportunistic fuckers never miss a trick.
Click to expand...
Beat me to it! I thought our mascot had a special issue goalie shirt rather than the sponsor being covered up but either way we did it right and them lot didn't. And it was their occasion too. Disrespectful cunts!
 
M18CTID said:
Beat me to it! I thought our mascot had a special issue goalie shirt rather than the sponsor being covered up but either way we did it right and them lot didn't. And it was their occasion too. Disrespectful cunts!
Click to expand...
just a note. It was an occasion for the whole of Manchester which some time ago, way after the actual event itself, they decided to monetise.
 
Bell1970 said:
Followed you in..

YOUR COMPLAINT:

Dan Roan Clickbait bias 

I read Dan Roan's article about the forthcoming investigative hearing between Manchester City and the Premier League. It seems to be full of errors which are presumably left in for effect.

1. It is not a trial, it is a hearing. There is a big difference.
2. He uses the phrase "No conclusive evidence" to refer to the judgement of CAS in the 2022 case between the same club and the European governing body. Why has he chosen to insert the word "conclusive" when the actual CAS adjudication used the phrase "no evidence" 12 times. Does including the word "conclusive" sound a bit more sinister??
3. Dan informs us that the Independent Commission has "limitless powers". No they do not. For example they cannot demand access to the books of third party sponsors which would surely be a key part of any criminal investigation. Neither can they demand to see bank accounts for club owners for example. Once again, Dan makes no attempt to explain the type of cogent evidence that will be required to get the outcome he so clearly hopes for.
4. Dan also says that there can be no time-barring applied to this investigative hearing. Again that is wholly wrong. The Premier League and it's rules are still bound by the law of the land which has a statute of limitations of 6 years which in this case will most likely apply to many of the allegations. Time barring will apply unless the Premier League's legal team can show cogent evidence (that phrase again) that dishonesty and potentially fraud have been involved in the preparation of accounts. This information regarding basic legal process is easy to find and I find it shocking, although not surprising, that the BBC's lead reporter has either not bothered to appraise himself of such basic facts or just chosen to mislead his audience.


Once again the BBC's impartiality is in question. I am aware that Mr Roan has previously been barred from the Etihad for inaccurate reporting in the past. Is he abusing his position to exact revenge?
Click to expand...
Being honest, most fan complaints I read on here are arse clenchingly embarrassing but that’s well written and reasonable.
 
Dubai Blue said:
And yet City's actual mascot that day (in the keeper kit) had all the branding on her kit covered up with green tape. Those classless, opportunistic fuckers never miss a trick.
Click to expand...
It possible could have been but iI don’t remember this being mentioned in the media at the time.
 
GortonBlue62 said:
Imagine you were a journalist looking to distinguish yourself from the herd and make a name for yourself.

Wouldn't you think that exploring the possibility that City are just the victim of a witch-hunt and completely innocent would be worth an article?

Wouldn't it also be worth exploring the effect of such an outcome on the PL?

Maybe Martin Samuel will write something in his next column.
Click to expand...

City are now entering their 14th consecutive season in the Champions league. During that time utd have qualified 9 times, Liverpool and Arsenal will be 8 times, Chelsea 10 and Spurs 5 times.

City have also won 17 domestic trophies, not including Charity Shield, since our FA cup win in 2011. The rest of the so called top 6 have only managed 19 domestic trophies between them. Chelsea, Liverpool and utd with 5 each, Arsenal with 4 and Spurs with fuck all.

As long as the MSM and other fans are able to console themselves that we must have cheated then there can be no other reason for our lengthy period of sustained success.

Not much mention of the trophies won under Pep post 2018 which are outside the period of time that the alleged charges are contained within.

It’s an awful lot of money and trophies that City have prevented the others from sharing.
 
Last edited:
abu13 said:
The bit that I am really curious about is our "Irrifutable evidence".

Given that the case is set aside to last for 10-12 weeks what would happen if we present this evidence at the start of the process and the investigators agree that we are right. If this suddenly wiped 50% of the charges away then surely the whole process time is drastically reduced.

Will be interesting how this works out.
Click to expand...
The irrefutable evidence is largely the audited accounts which show no such payments as alleged. Our team will probably have to go through each charge and map it to our accounts line by line. A long job.
 
Colin Bell (genuine name) said:
City are now entering their 14th consecutive season in the Premier league. During that time utd have qualified 9 times, Liverpool and Arsenal will be 8 times, Chelsea 10 and Spurs 5 times.

City have also won 17 domestic trophies, not including Charity Shield, since our FA cup win in 2011. The rest of the so called top 6 have only managed 19 domestic trophies between them. Chelsea, Liverpool and utd with 5 each, Arsenal with 4 and Spurs with fuck all.

As long as the MSM and other fans are able to console themselves that we must have cheated then there can be no other reason for our lengthy period of sustained success.

Not much mention of the trophies won under Pep post 2018 which are outside the period of time that the alleged charges are contained within.

It’s an awful lot of money and trophies that City have prevented the others from sharing.
Click to expand...

All the others have spent more & been unable to replicate it even with their history, DNA, heritage…..
 
tolmie's hairdoo said:
They each don't have the £250m fine they would have to pay to leave.

And even if they did try, it would only evidence to the rest of the country they had been the puppeteers of this entire City farce.
Click to expand...
You're assuming the rest of the country would be intelligent enough to work that out. I've seen no evidence of it these last few years! ;0)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top