PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[applecentral]

There should be some head Chopin happening in the near future.

I’m going to get Brahms and List.

 

[Fiftyyearsandcounting]

You'll have to scroll through add after add to read the full article, if you can be arsed?

Premier League CEO Masters scores huge own goal with two Man City blunders

Premier League CEO Richard Masters has given a wide-ranging interview that conveniently avoided the most important issue he faces this year: Manchester City.

www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk

"A verdict is expected this year, likely in the first months of 2025, which will determine if City have systematically cheated and broken financial rules, or if the Premier League have launched the significant allegations without sufficient evidence to prove it"

So, what that paragraph is implying is that either we are guilty as proved or guilty but not proved!

 

[Lord Blue]

I’m going to get Brahms and List.

new law firm?

 

[Lord Blue]

"A verdict is expected this year, likely in the first months of 2025, which will determine if City have systematically cheated and broken financial rules, or if the Premier League have launched the significant allegations without sufficient evidence to prove it"

So, what that paragraph is implying is that either we are guilt as proved or guilty but not proved!

hmmm, can't really see any other way to read that other than as you say.

i wonder if that phrasing is the norm in legal cases. sure a few here can comment?

 

[JewelZee]

I think there's a subtle difference in that UEFA's panel was clearly biased - and to give them a tiny bit of credit they perhaps had not much alternative but to find us guilty when we stopped co-operating - whereas the panel in this case ought to be truly independent to the point that it could be argued that they're equivalent to CAS

We can only hope...

 

[Superace]

This soft signal stuff is getting people carried away.

There is no evidence either way. We are as likely to get found guilty with a relegation than to be clearer, possibly more likely. You're setting yourselves up for a massive fall.

Stefan gave a very vague piece of information which he constantly qualified as something that isn't indicative of much at all, and now the rest of you are reading articles like they're tea leaves. It has to stop before you all turn into scousers.

Nah it's ok to be positive, also Stefan did say that's it's evidence inconsistent with a negative outcome, so I'd read a positive into that.

 

[St Helens Blue (Exiled)]

'Irrefutable evidence'

See you at West Ham

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

"A verdict is expected this year, likely in the first months of 2025, which will determine if City have systematically cheated and broken financial rules, or if the Premier League have launched the significant allegations without sufficient evidence to prove it"

So, what that paragraph is implying is that either we are guilty as proved or guilty but not proved!

That is exactly what it says. Cunts.

 

[Lord Blue]

i imagine that when the case fails the PL will say that the allegations were made by their member clubs and they had no choice but to investigate. and of course refuse to name which clubs.

 

[city2]

Fully agreed, though he’s just the fall guy really isn’t he?

Bit like Oswald and we know what happened to him.