Yep. They were clever and must’ve had the “nod” that it would be waved through. I do hope the detailed ruling following our hearing shines some light on how powerful certain rivals are in yanking the chain of the Premier League. More and more examples are coming to light.It couldnt be just that though. They couldnt submit those loss figures without knowing for a fact they wouldnt be disputed/Charged.
They would be completely open to a huge points deduction. They confidently spent hundreds of millions in the preceding transfer windows knowing that they wouldnt be punished further down the line.
That's the kind of thing I was querying, would things like that come under disguised owner investment now? Would anything like that have to be declared?He also got given a horse by major shareholders.
I watched that and thought it was surprisingly balanced tbh though obviously focussing on City’s potential punishments.I watched The Athletic YouTube channel video about "what punishment will City get?"
Video truthfully wasn't as bad as I was expecting, still was bad mind you, but at least they mostly included "if".
They did address, very briefly, what will City do if/when we win the case. They seemed to think City would be happy to just let it go and move on
I find that madness.
Hopefully it also means that they still haven't found what they're looking for...I heard that the PL legal team have taken the case 'pro bono' which, i believe means they can avoid some corporation tax
Has Bono?Hopefully it also means that they still haven't found what they're looking for...
My seemingly sensible brother in law (rag) is convinced if we “get let off” its because we bribed “The FA”.
This is what we are up against.
I asked him what the fuck its got to do with the FA anyway and how any bribe would go down.
He just said “money talks”
:))
My sis is a big blue. She knows hes a cockTell your sister/brother to make sure they take full fiscal responsibility for their household finances as he's a fucking idiot if he thinks bribing a totally different organisation would make any difference.
They ducked out of the dipper charge by claiming it was all settled up between the two clubs. Personally I think it was insane letting the dippers away with it but subsequently read on here that considerations regarding GDPR and possible severe sanctions softened our cough in relation to this matter.My first question to Masters would be Why have you charged Manchester City for things that allegedly happened 12 years ago when you didn't charge Liverpool for Hacking City's database as " It was too long ago" By the way, you have charged Manchester City for breaking EUFA FFP. Man United were found guilty by EUFA and fined for breaking FFP but not charged. Why not?
Yet they've got let off from failing PSR because of the Premier League giving them a Covid 19 allowance over 40 times more than the next highest allowance and an allowance of £35 million for their legal fees from Scruffy Jim's investment. A fee oid Catweazle could have easily paid from his tax dodging money. As the old saying goes "One rule for one, one for the rest of us". That is what we're up against.My seemingly sensible brother in law (rag) is convinced if we “get let off” its because we bribed “The FA”.
This is what we are up against.
I asked him what the fuck its got to do with the FA anyway and how any bribe would go down.
He just said “money talks”
:))