PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

For the result of a hearing that supposedly concluded in December to not be available until May-June-++ is fucking ludicrous imo. The legals can talk about complexity, number of charges, fine-tooth-comb reporting etc but, it's been said often enough here, the basis for the bullshit expanded 115/130 boils down to potentially 5, some say 3, core accusations, so the longevity of the whole thing seems insane!
 
Although like most people I do get giddy when any of the things connected at City is taken as a proof of a "positive outcome in the 115 case", no one could possibility know what is going to happen even the lawyers.

The top most guys and I mean the top 2-3 people may hear a thing or two about the case but the result I don't think so.

What we know with certain accuracy is the alleged charges go to the very top and the PL needs to prove that top billion dollar auditors and head of a sovereign state colluded so that Mancini can get an extra 3 bhk penhouse in Paris.

If you are trying to accuse a sitting president for a warcrime, you better have a 4K Bluray version of the video of him/her uttering those words and some 100 eye witnesses to corroborate along with the entire parliament and judiciary behind you - and that takes time. Years and in some cases even decades. Though not similar but 115 case is just a couple of years old.

So the timeline of when the result will be released doesn't stress me out that much.
What stresses me out immensely if they are able to prove these charges. An entire government and group of auditors conspiring together so that Aguero can score a goal in 94th minute for little City! We really are massive.
 
Cobwebcat said:
I won a bet vs my whole office once. I said the blue Fry’s chocolate cream was fondant flavour. Everybody else said it was mint flavour. I rang up Cadburys and put them on speaker phone….of course they were all mistaken.

The World’s oldest chocolate bar brand by the way.

One of my finest days ;-)

In other news…we have to wait until the Summer for the verdict?! Bloody hell.
Click to expand...
 
It makes sense to me.

I wouldn't be surprised if City, the Premier League and the panel all agreed some time ago that, whatever the verdict was, it would cause too much aggravation to release the information in the closing few weeks of the season and have clubs and fans in uproar should a punishment be handed down, but appealed and then delayed.

Nobody wants a sentence (or non-sentence) dragging on from one season to another without resolution. This way, we can have a verdict and an appeal all sorted within the same season.

Neither City nor the PL need the distraction at this time of the campaign, no matter how impatient us fans are to get this over with.

Also, if the verdict is delivered a couple of months before the start of the season, it allows time for the anger to die down. Throw a verdict out on a Friday in April and all hell will break loose with any game the following day being a powderkeg of emotion, one way or the other.
 
HypnoticBlue said:
Not sure if it’s been asked before, but if we had used directors loans like some of the others in the prem, would I be right in thinking that we would have pissed FFP?
Click to expand...
It's been asked many times and the answer has always been the same. Sheikh Mansour could lend us a billion pounds but it doesn't make any difference to FFP as you can only spend what you earn, and loans aren't revenue.

And we're pissing FFP as we're profitable.
 
The end result will be around 1000 pages of gobbledegook, that will underpin City's innocence, but somehow justifies the Premier League's decisions to charge.

In short, it will fizzle into nothing, and if anyone thinks different, I do believe we have an Isco thread on which you can keep your bated breath occupied. Just don't hold it too long mind, as you could turn a deeper shade of blue than Sky. :-)
 
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