PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

halfcenturyup said:
Personally, I think the PL have been manipulated into this situation by certain rival clubs, by a particularly weak PL management team and by a combative club management.

I am not sure it's in the PL's interests to destroy the club's reputation even if that, through their weakness and incompetence, is one of the consequences.
Click to expand...
I have stopped thinking of the PL as the governing body of English top-flight football, and I just think of them as the red cartel which has the reins of power in their hands.
If you then think of the difference between the best interests of the PL and its product, and the best interests of the cartel, the difference is obvious.
The cartel really don’t care about the PL as an entity, they see it as a vehicle to either destroy City, or declare it as unfit for purpose if they don’t, and off they will go to revive the ESL with added US clubs and interests.
 
blueste41 said:
Ok I won't encourage you but I fail to see how you have come up with a 2000 word fact base analysis without the facts?
That's without discussing how impartial you were in your approach.
Click to expand...

You don't have to believe me. That's fine.

You don't have to believe I can look at things impartially, either. Although that is a little insulting.

But look at it the other way round then. Just how likely is it that the people running the club thought that they had to do what is alleged, and then discuss it in internal documents and emails? Of course, it's possible. But I would say it's overwhelmingly unlikely. And then I would say even if they did do what is alleged, the chances of the PL being able to prove it to the required standard are close to zero because they won't have had access to the sort of information that would prove it. Which brings us to whistle-blowers. Any whistle-blower would most likely have to be from the UAE, and the chances of anyone from the UAE blowing any whistles on Mansour I estimate to be approximately zero.

So, on the whole, whichever way round I look at it, to me it is overwhelmingly unlikely that the PL will have been able to prove the most serious allegations to the required standard.
 
Dribble said:
The authorities have had 10 years to time their intervention. What are they still waiting for? Round four of The PL & UEFA vs City?

Mate, just do a quick Google search on the reporting of crimes in the UK, & this will easily prove the authorities only need to be made aware of a criminal act to investigate. They don't need a crime to be formally reported to act, especially if it's in the public interest.

We've seen in Italy & with UEFA & FIFA how the authorities take a serious & dim view of fraud. So again all I ask is you conduct a Google search of whether a crime needs to be formally reported for the authorities to act, & to consider that with all the wild reports of City's many wrongdoings, why they're still waiting to pounce on us with actual criminal charges 12 years after this witch hunt began?
Click to expand...
I don’t need to Google thank you. I am aware that the SFO have admitted that their policy needs updating to gather evidence before a case is opened, which is not the case now. Our case is right in that space. Enough OUT.
 
oldius said:
I saw one lawyer in the Panini album and if you looked really closely you could see her briefs....fnarr!
Click to expand...
If i hadn’t spent all my money buying sun for centerfolds, I would been a lawyer by now.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Personally, I think the PL have been manipulated into this situation by certain rival clubs, by a particularly weak PL management team and by a combative club management.

I am not sure it's in the PL's interests to destroy the club's reputation even if that, through their weakness and incompetence, is one of the consequences.
Click to expand...

Weakness and incompetence are very kind words for the actions they have taken. Too much faith. Its a lost cause that can't regulate itself.
 
slbsn said:
PwC disagreed in 2014
Click to expand...
I never know on what basis some of these arguments turn. I have seen one serious lawyer completely misunderstanding the Sheiks title of ‘Deputy Prime Minister’ to mean he was at that time a member of the gov of UAE. It is a courtesy title and there are currently three of them. So, without more background, I am often sceptical as to whether these people know what they are talking about.
 
halfcenturyup said:
You don't have to believe me. That's fine.

You don't have to believe I can look at things impartially, either. Although that is a little insulting.

But look at it the other way round then. Just how likely is it that the people running the club thought that they had to do what is alleged, and then discuss it in internal documents and emails? Of course, it's possible. But I would say it's overwhelmingly unlikely. And then I would say even if they did do what is alleged, the chances of the PL being able to prove it to the required standard are close to zero because they won't have had access to the sort of information that would prove it. Which brings us to whistle-blowers. Any whistle-blower would most likely have to be from the UAE, and the chances of anyone from the UAE blowing any whistles on Mansour I estimate to be approximately zero.

So, on the whole, whichever way round I look at it, to me it is overwhelmingly unlikely that the PL will have been able to prove the most serious allegations to the required standard.
Click to expand...
It's not about not believing you, what you have outlined above are nothing more than discussion points. Similar to the post where you said that your sure the PL have took the action because of other clubs have forced them to-opinion and discussion.
The impartial part, pretend for a moment the charges are against Liverpool, can you hand on heart say you would have formed the same opinion? Even if so I'm struggling to believe there isn't some unconscious bias goig on.
Your proposition makes it sound like a nothing to see hear situation. The PL have spent millions pursuing it, 3 judges spent x weeks/months hearing the evidence (if the league had none what were they listening to?). Now they have spent x weeks coming to their conclusions. There is a lot going on for a nothing to see hear case.
 
slbsn said:
I’d say it is controversial. UEFA did conclude in 2014 Etihad was related - so I’d say that was controversial.

Probably should wait for the prospectus
Click to expand...

Surely the prospectus won't be treating the Etihad / City relationship any differently than has happened in 15 years worth of accounts? It may be explained in more detail, but the classification will surely be the same?

Agree there can be a discussion around the related party nature of Etihad, and I, for one, think that was one of the allegations, but I guess they would have to have some pretty strong arguments to override the interpretation of the club's and Etihad's auditors? And I just don't see them having that.

(And is it right to say that UEFA concluded Etihad was related in 2014? The Investigatory Chamber considered it so but it was all settled before it went to the Adjudicatory Chamber. And in 2019 it wasn't raised again despite the new sponsorship "evidence").
 
blueste41 said:
It's not about not believing you, what you have outlined above are nothing more than discussion points. Similar to the post where you said that your sure the PL have took the action because of other clubs have forced them to-opinion and discussion.
The impartial part, pretend for a moment the charges are against Liverpool, can you hand on heart say you would have formed the same opinion? Even if so I'm struggling to believe there isn't some unconscious bias goig on.
Your proposition makes it sound like a nothing to see hear situation. The PL have spent millions pursuing it, 3 judges spent x weeks/months hearing the evidence (if the league had none what were they listening to?). Now they have spent x weeks coming to their conclusions. There is a lot going on for a nothing to see hear case.
Click to expand...
Jarndyce v Jarndyce.
Plenty going on, signifying nothing.
The real case on which it is based only came to a halt when the lawyers had spent the whole inheritance at dispute.
 
blueste41 said:
It's not about not believing you, what you have outlined above are nothing more than discussion points. Similar to the post where you said that your sure the PL have took the action because of other clubs have forced them to-opinion and discussion.
The impartial part, pretend for a moment the charges are against Liverpool, can you hand on heart say you would have formed the same opinion? Even if so I'm struggling to believe there isn't some unconscious bias goig on.
Your proposition makes it sound like a nothing to see hear situation. The PL have spent millions pursuing it, 3 judges spent x weeks/months hearing the evidence (if the league had none what were they listening to?). Now they have spent x weeks coming to their conclusions. There is a lot going on for a nothing to see hear case.
Click to expand...

That's just your opinion.
 
Micky Blue said:
To me it’s beginning to look more and more like the PL didn’t care about us being found guilty.
They just wanted to destroy our reputation.

They’ve enabled our rivals fans and the scum in the media to abuse and defame us with impunity due to the agenda against us.

I hope Khaldoon brings down the PL and that fat **** masters for what they’ve done.
Click to expand...

halfcenturyup said:
Personally, I think the PL have been manipulated into this situation by certain rival clubs, by a particularly weak PL management team and by a combative club management.

I am not sure it's in the PL's interests to destroy the club's reputation even if that, through their weakness and incompetence, is one of the consequences.
Click to expand...

If it wasn’t their intention then what did they possibly think could happen? The end outcome would either be destroy City & tarnish the league reputation or simply tarnish the league reputation.

There was no benefit for an independent competition to do what they’ve done with nothing more than innuendo as evidence.
 
halfcenturyup said:
That's just your opinion.
Click to expand...
Mostly yes, there was one question that you chose to not answer.
The thing I find most surprising is that 99% of impartial City Fans have decided we're not guilty and 99% of impartial fans of other clubs have decided we are guilty, some huge coincidences there.
 
blueste41 said:
Mostly yes, there was one question that you chose to not answer.
The thing I find most surprising is that 99% of impartial City Fans have decided we're not guilty and 99% of impartial fans of other clubs have decided we are guilty, some huge coincidences there.
Click to expand...
If this were Manchester United or Liverpool, I would absolutely be certain of their guilt. The only thing is, it will NEVER be Manchester United or Liverpool.
 
Last edited:
halfcenturyup said:
Surely the prospectus won't be treating the Etihad / City relationship any differently than has happened in 15 years worth of accounts? It may be explained in more detail, but the classification will surely be the same?

Agree there can be a discussion around the related party nature of Etihad, and I, for one, think that was one of the allegations, but I guess they would have to have some pretty strong arguments to override the interpretation of the club's and Etihad's auditors? And I just don't see them having that.

(And is it right to say that UEFA concluded Etihad was related in 2014? The Investigatory Chamber considered it so but it was all settled before it went to the Adjudicatory Chamber. And in 2019 it wasn't raised again despite the new sponsorship "evidence").
Click to expand...
UEFA concluded it but we don’t know at what level. Certainly was never tested to any great extent because City settled. I would hope the prospectus doesn’t treat it differently. And if it doesn’t, that feels very powerful to me.
 
blueste41 said:
Mostly yes, there was one question that you chose to not answer.
The thing I find most surprising is that 99% of impartial City Fans have decided we're not guilty and 99% of impartial fans of other clubs have decided we are guilty, some huge coincidences there.
Click to expand...

I think it is because as City fans we know a little more about it. Rival fans aren't bothered about educating themselves on the matter, they believe we are guilty because of the media whirlwind behind it all. Because there is no articles about us potentially being innocent and many articles that talk about our punishments. Because the likes of talksport provide misinformation, like when Stefan was on early in the case he said we could get relegated but his belief is we won't be found guilty. The headline read "financial football expert claims man city could get relegated"

When you talk to other fans their conclusion is based on misinformation. They say we got away with CAS because it was all time barred, they tell us we was still guilty because we got fined. They aren't remotely bothered about any form of truth because they need us to be guilty to ease their pain. We on the other hand look into it in more detail, we listen to the clubs views. We have to believe we will be in the clear from what we know, other fans have to believe the opposite.
 
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