PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Bloominmarvellous said:
As far as I am aware city passed on information requested by the PL after the tribunal ruling, that's according to the legal bulletins I receive at work.

I might be seeing this a bit too simply but either city provided the info requested and are clear on the non cooperation charge or they did not comply with the ruling by the tribunal and thus I would expect a ruling of this being proven on balance of probabilities.
Click to expand...
My take on this has always been the same from day one. The "information requested by the PL" is "give us the information we need to find you guilty, because we've been trying to find something on you for the past decade but we haven't been able to".
 
surprisedbygrass said:
This . The PL set this whole thing up to damage Brand City . Won't be announced until after transfer window closes . I expect a few more slur stories over the summer . Or stuff about Guardiola's contract .
Click to expand...
From what others have said on here both parties have some say in the time and maneer of the release of the judgement? If it is largely in our favour, then the pl could be skirting close to being found to have caused damage to the business (club) anyway? To delay it further out of spite and compromise another transfer window or potential investment is surely a risky strategy.
 
Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese said:
From what others have said on here both parties have some say in the time and maneer of the release of the judgement? If it is largely in our favour, then the pl could be skirting close to being found to have caused damage to the business (club) anyway? To delay it further out of spite and compromise another transfer window or potential investment is surely a risky strategy.
Click to expand...
Fair point . After the APT announcement fiasco I'm not trusting the PL an inch and neither will our club.
 
surprisedbygrass said:
Fair point . After the APT announcement fiasco I'm not trusting the PL an inch and neither will our club.
Click to expand...
Me neither, but if they have lost then they risk pissing more of the other 19 shareholders dividend up the wall by dragging this on. Much as masters and a few of the clubs would like to do this, once it starts hitting them in the wallet I just can't see it happening.
 
coolcity said:
My take on this has always been the same from day one. The "information requested by the PL" is "give us the information we need to find you guilty, because we've been trying to find something on you for the past decade but we haven't been able to".
Click to expand...
"If you don't give us the information to find you guilty with, then we'll find you guilty of non-cooperation, regardless if we didn't ask for that particular information in the first place".

Given the poor wording of their rules, they could actually do that as well.
 
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