paul power
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 110
Old News ? This was from yesterdays press conference with Norwegian journalist. They asked about The charges, and Erling’s response was that he trusted The Club and saw no problems.
PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules
- Thread starter ayrshire_blue
- Start date
It's a standard response to be fair, nothing to see here imo.
Cobwebcat
Well-Known Member
When the verdict comes out it’s going to be monumental. Even allowing for the fact that both sides will win some points it will quickly become clear who has, in reality, “won”.
If it’s the PL, and we have committed fraud, then it looks like our fanbase has been lied to by our own club.
If it’s City, and we have been chased through the courts for years for no reason, every other fanbase has been lied to by everyone else.
I’m still confident and looking forward to the disbelief of our rivals.
If it’s the PL, and we have committed fraud, then it looks like our fanbase has been lied to by our own club.
If it’s City, and we have been chased through the courts for years for no reason, every other fanbase has been lied to by everyone else.
I’m still confident and looking forward to the disbelief of our rivals.
That was a good example of how incompetent the PL are right at the beginning of the smear campaign. Nothing has changed since then.
DJBusinesscake
Well-Known Member
Signing a 9.5 year deal isn't exactly 'standard' is it lol, obviously he isn't concerned about the charges for one reason or another.
Roy paul brother
Active Member
- Joined
- 19 Jul 2023
- Messages
- 37
- Team supported
- Man city
Martin Lipton always as
I was referring, in particular, to his comments.
Mid Wales blue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 30 Jan 2017
- Messages
- 4,884
Sorry had to go down the garden centre, and as it’s officially spring I’m in the garden over next few days getting it all planted up.
Yes, looks like it’s piss boiling time!
jamielowndes
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 15 Jan 2010
- Messages
- 2,769
Exactly. There is no sane agent or lawyer who is telling him to sign this if the club is doomed to relegation and financial sanctions.
paul power
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 110
I saw The press conference, and The whole point was that when Erling was asked about The charges and his contract to 2034, he was totally confident that The charges was no problem. Calling his response as standard is bullshit.
Chris in London
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Sep 2009
- Messages
- 13,816
There is no way the PL wouldn’t have leaked it
wolviedinho
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 23,888
- Location
- Doublethink
- Team supported
- Super City from Maine Road(not wolves)
If this has all been a witch hunt as many believe then it’s no surprise Haaland thinks the charges are bullshit. Same with Pep and khaldoon.
Bullshit anti competition rules is more believable that mass scale fraud.
What if the charges are just that?
Disgusting if true.
bobbyowenquiff
Well-Known Member
I presume City’s Directors would have carried out detailed risk assessments of all potential scenarios. They will also have seen all the evidence. Of course the Judges could come back with a bizarre decision. But City’s legal team and Directors will have solid predictions by now.
No points deduction would be a win for us. A fine might allow keyboard warriors etc to continue calling us cheats and so feeling better about their tiny worlds but who cares one jot about that.
BlueRockape
Well-Known Member
If this is the case and they have nothing apart from trying to ruin the club in the press.
We should take them to the fukin cleaners
Knickers too tight? There's nothing really different he could have said as a response, that was my point. It's standard PR. So happy you saw the press conference as well.
Costs and damages - what Man City could get for beating 115 charges
A look at the millions that would be owed to Manchester City if they are cleared of the main charges levelled at them by the Premier League
I am confident this is correct:
“Whilst we know from the published Everton costs hearing that there is no restriction on the Independent Commission in terms of costs, it is likely to be asked to, and will, treat the proceedings akin to High Court commercial litigation," football finance expert Stefan Borson told the Manchester Evening News. "In doing so, the general rule is that it is fair for the unsuccessful party to pay the successful party’s costs. This is especially so where a party fails to prove serious allegations of fraud where courts generally award the highest percentage of recovery (known as indemnity costs). Likewise, a finding of fraud against City is likely to give rise to the Premier League getting the vast majority of its costs from City."The complexity can arise where, as in City’s case, there is a range of allegations and where the decision may not be binary. In those cases, the courts (and therefore the IC) will look, as a matter of substance and reality, who has 'won.'
"Then it considers whether, despite one party having won in the significant sense, there are any matters which the other party has succeeded on which took a significant amount of additional time and resource to contest. This might include the co-operation charges."From there it is for the party claiming costs to show that it’s costs claimed are reasonable and proportionate except if one side is awarded the indemnity costs as could be possible in this case."In summary, if City were to successfully defend all the substantive allegations regardless of the cooperation outcome, they could expect to recover 80-90% of their costs.”
wolviedinho
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 23,888
- Location
- Doublethink
- Team supported
- Super City from Maine Road(not wolves)
And then some…
I always try to be rational.
Are all clubs squeaky clean? No
It’s ok to have the club in over 1 billion debt and sack the cleaners.
It’s ok to run a multimillion pound club and beg for covid cash.
It’s ok to have record breaking commercial income but again go cap n hand looking public tax money to fund a stadium.
It’s ok to sell hotels to your parent company.
It’s ok to plan a fake stadium build to avoid uefa sanctions.
It’s ok to hack a rival club.
It’s ok to hide losses using a corporate take over well 20% percent or so.
It’s ok to a have a Russian do what ever the fuck he wants.
So whatever city may or may not have done, which I’m sure is legal but maybe bends the rules so fucking what. It’s no worse than anyone else.
The majority above could be considered fraud and it certainly raises questions around sporting fairness and integrity.
In a funny way, I take great comfort in knowing that all this would not be happening if we didn’t win 4 leagues in a row, a treble, centurions etc. Those wonderful memories and experiences will never be tainted.
I still get emotional now watching Yaya score at stoke or Sergio v QPR or Gundo x 2 or Rodri. Even Jesus for the 100. We beat them all fairly on the pitch. These charges are nothing more than epic fan denial.
Last edited:
The FT also appeared to confirm the split hearing in the Masters interview piece. I'd say it is 99% that the initial hearing was liability only.
As of now there is almost zero chance a second hearing has happened in secret and a liability decision has been slipped out.
I'd say the only outstanding question on this is whether we get the liability decision released before any sanction hearing (if any) and if so whether it has any redaction of note. There is a chance that the reasoned decisions are both held back to be released upon the conclusion of the sanction decision. I think this is what the FA did in the recent Nottingham Forest case.
Samuel thought we were guilty in the CAS case. He wouldn’t make that mistake again.