PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Rory Bluelow said:
I think he was voting supporting his principals at UEFA in the knowledge they’d be a (losing) minority. I also think one of his staff or research assistants wrote up the reasoning behind his opinions - it was very weak from memory.
Click to expand...
Yes, he was UEFA's choice, and it's possible he voted in support of his principles, knowing they would lose. I don't know if this is common practice, but in any case, he voted against a comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence. He was comfortably satisfied with UEFA's case, and that is truly unbelievable.
 
Lord Blue said:
brilliant as always.

one thing that has always concerned me has been, in your words, the entirely reasonable assumption that the PL wouldn't have accused the club in this way without being confident of having a strong case. given the huge cost and reputational damage that the PL themselves incur. Against that you have City's apparent confidence. But City have no choice but to exude confidence. The PL appear to have had a choice, City didn't.

having said that, i do think it a witch hunt. i do think city are innocent of deliberate foul play. but i'm not 100% convinced that we haven't broken the rules by interpreting them differently.
Click to expand...
Although Uefa were seen in a bad light after the CAS verdict it didn't harm their reputation & the cartel clubs botched super league plans probably enhanced Uefas position.

It's the clubs who will foot the bill for the EPL doing the cartels dirty work
 
KS55 said:
“The reason most people think lawyers are scumbags is because they complicate everything.” Erin Brockovich. (The film, not the real person.)
Click to expand...

In my opinion, the sentence doesn't fit the crime here. I admit that some (note that word) lawyers act in a way that mean they'd be appropriately classified as scumbags. However, someone whose only offence is specify they mean "Erin Brockovich, the film" rather than "Erin Brockovich, the real person" when it's obvious which is meant, to label such a person a "scumbag" seems to me unaccountably harsh. They're nothing more than a knobhead, surely? ;}
 
Just want to share it, maybe somebody is interested. This is from a german forum, where somebody wrote: But you can basically say that if the charges are dropped, City is still 99% guilty, right?

Answer:
Once a club has been declared the enemy, it will most likely be difficult to prove innocence to the masses or your 99%.
But unless you are an investigative journalist, are extremely familiar with the subject matter and have really detailed information about the process, it would of course be nonsense to simply assume guilt.
Especially as we are talking about completely different decision-makers and institutions here, and neither FIFA nor UEFA are involved.
These two associations have created an incredible swamp of corruption over decades and I can therefore fully understand why fans don't pay much attention to their judgements and results. I don't myself. Whether it's City, Paris or Dinamo Minsk.

But with the English decision-makers, I just can't imagine that they would try to sweep things under the carpet on a grand scale.
The outcry in England would be gigantic and the league would also be risking its image. After all, we're talking about a turnover of €8bn and a reputation as the best and most demanding football league in the world.
And somehow it makes no sense to me to make the process so time-consuming and risk God and the world being able to report on the allegations for months or even years.
Of course, this figure of 115 offences also sounds particularly serious, although I don't think we all know what exactly counts as an offence.
If Mr Foden received expenses on his invoice for which there was no receipt, that could also be an offence. But this shit happens every day in every small or large company and can be corrected retrospectively with a pen and an A4 piece of paper.
Or are we perhaps talking here about several million sums that suddenly no longer appear in any balance sheet and would then of course have the potential to become a major scandal?

If there are cooked books at the club, then we will probably find out.
In the last trial against City, UEFA didn't wave anything through and sweep it under the carpet, but even passed a relatively harsh or expected judgement.
However, the International Court of Arbitration for Sport has now overturned it. Whether you like it or not. But then some fans turn everything into a huge conspiracy theory.
The ‘normal’ fan has to come to terms with the fact that he probably has no chance of really understanding these legal disputes in detail.
 
Last edited:
Sebi said:
Just want to share it, maybe somebody is interested. This is from a german forum, where somebody wrote: But you can basically say that if the charges are dropped, City is still 99% guilty, right?

Answer:
Once a club has been declared the enemy, it will most likely be difficult to prove innocence to the masses or your 99%.
But unless you are an investigative journalist, are extremely familiar with the subject matter and have really detailed information about the process, it would of course be nonsense to simply assume guilt.
Especially as we are talking about completely different decision-makers and institutions here, and neither FIFA nor UEFA are involved.
These two associations have created an incredible swamp of corruption over decades and I can therefore fully understand why fans don't pay much attention to their judgements and results. I don't myself. Whether it's City, Paris or Dinamo Minsk.

But with the English decision-makers, I just can't imagine that they would try to sweep things under the carpet on a grand scale.
The outcry in England would be gigantic and the league would also be risking its image. After all, we're talking about a turnover of €8bn and a reputation as the best and most demanding football league in the world.
And somehow it makes no sense to me to make the process so time-consuming and risk God and the world being able to report on the allegations for months or even years.
Of course, this figure of 115 offences also sounds particularly serious, although I don't think we all know what exactly counts as an offence.
If Mr Foden received expenses on his invoice for which there was no receipt, that could also be an offence. But this shit happens every day in every small or large company and can be corrected retrospectively with a pen and an A4 piece of paper.
Or are we perhaps talking here about several million sums that suddenly no longer appear in any balance sheet and would then of course have the potential to become a major scandal?

If there are cooked books at the club, then we will probably find out.
In the last trial against City, UEFA didn't wave anything through and sweep it under the carpet, but even passed a relatively harsh or expected judgement.
However, the International Court of Arbitration for Sport has now overturned it. Whether you like it or not. But then some fans turn everything into a huge conspiracy theory.
The ‘normal’ fan has to come to terms with the fact that he probably has no chance of really understanding these legal disputes in detail.
Click to expand...

Cheers Geoff
 
petrusha said:
In my opinion, the sentence doesn't fit the crime here. I admit that some (note that word) lawyers act in a way that mean they'd be appropriately classified as scumbags. However, someone whose only offence is specify they mean "Erin Brockovich, the film" rather than "Erin Brockovich, the real person" when it's obvious which is meant, to label such a person a "scumbag" seems to me unaccountably harsh. They're nothing more than a knobhead, surely? ;}
Click to expand...
That quote comes from a very funny scene where Ed, the lawyer, winds up Erin and pretends he has cut her bonus.
 
Last edited:
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