PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

halfcenturyup said:
Haha. That's classic.
Click to expand...
There's another story about him, that illustrates his mendacity. He always claimed that he was from a City-supporting family but his father, who was a respected local government leader in Stoke then Hampshire, did an interview with his local paper in which he said they were united fans.

Then there was a snippet about him being a mascot at a match in Stoke, when they were playing united. He then claimed he was the Stoke mascot but someone (think it was Bill Borrows) got hold of a photo showing him as the united mascot.
 
BringBackSwales said:
I heard what you said the first time. Another poster has already called me irrational and I can’t be stressed at the mo. I’ve already said we should agree to disagree so your follow up adds nothing. I will ignore from now on. By the way “I don’t mean to sound rude” at the start of your post was pretty fucking patronising
Click to expand...

Jesus. It wasn't meant to be patronising. But you've asked questions, been given answers and now you're nickers are in a right fucking tangle about it all because you don't like the answers so yeah - ignore and leave it there.
 
It's all become very annoyingly tedious.
The fact that the panel know the outcome of the case and have done since December when the arbitration hearing was completed, is even more frustrating, in that the delay in the case findings publication is caused solely by the time it takes to thoroughly detail those findings and legal reasoning in relation to every charge.

The fact not a shred of information has emerged for the daily rag tops to scream from the rafters shows the undoubted utmost professional propriety with which the judges panel have treated the case and continue to do so. Compare that with the complete shambles of parts of the UEFA investigatory findings being leaked to the New York Times' cabal of shitbags prior to the release of their findings to the concerned party and then acting as judge, jury and executioner based on farcical interpretations of their "evidence" since proven at CAS to be a complete nonsense in light of actual facts.

Im convinced the PL have never had sufficient evidence available to prove their case to the necessary burden of proof and cogency and the serious charges will be "Not proven". No doubt we will suffer the indignation of being proven in some instances to have not co-operated in providing sufficient evidence for them to hang us with, I can live with that.
 
ayrshire_blue said:
I don't mean to sound rude, genuinely, but when we start talking about "X, Y or Z other club" I don't necessarily disagree but it's largely irrelevant. On the conversation about City - the emails alone warrant at least investigation and a case to answer - hacked, out of context or otherwise.
Click to expand...
The whataboutery quotes always come up for some reason no matter how many times it's repeated, that it just does not impact on our case whatsoever.

People also seem unclear on what "a case to answer" actually means, it doesn't mean they think we're guilty and they're already measuring us up for the drop.

Even if it was for the same timeframe as UEFA, would the PL still not be beholden to hold their own investigation? As it is, they're looking at the CAS time barred stuff regardless.

ayrshire_blue said:
Jesus. It wasn't meant to be patronising. But you've asked questions, been given answers and now you're nickers are in a right fucking tangle about it all because you don't like the answers so yeah - ignore and leave it there.
Click to expand...
I'm totally bemused how people are losing their shit on here yet again.
 
Marvin. said:
Demonstrably true prior to CAS, but I think most City fans were enraged that after all we went through with UEFA and CAS the whole affair was re-run again.
Click to expand...
Fair. But I guess they would say there was more evidence. Or at least they had an excuse to seek more evidence in an investigation. Once investigated then presumably gave rise to a case to answer.
 
Centurions said:
The whataboutery quotes always come up for some reason no matter how many times it's repeated, that it just does not impact on our case whatsoever.

People also seem unclear on what "a case to answer" actually means, it doesn't mean they think we're guilty and they're already measuring us up for the drop.

Even if it was for the same timeframe as UEFA, would the PL still not be beholden to hold their own investigation? As it is, they're looking at the CAS time barred stuff regardless.


I'm totally bemused how people are losing their shit on here yet again.
Click to expand...

Agree.

It's akin to a criminal trial where someone accused of bank robbery accuses a star witness of a completely unrelated murder which they haven't been charged with. It just doesn't impact their own defence to their own case whatsoever.

It's a different thing altogether for a different thread/case.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
He only survived because John Wardle (despite his many other qualities) was an ineffective chairman. Shinawatra saw through Mackintosh straight away.

I witnessed an incident where he told a large shareholder a barefaced lie and we were able to easily demonstrate it was false. He told people what he thought they wanted to hear and he lied to the Stock Exchange about having discussions leading to potential investment. The Takeover Panel were taking an active interest and asking some awkward questions about this just before Shinawatra came along, which saved him.

He also clearly flouted the Corporate Governance code in a number of areas, including being simultaneously de facto Finance Director, the CEO and one of the two members of the Audit Committee.

He certainly seems to have done a good job at Fulham but I suspect the Khan family keeps him on a much tighter leash than Wardle did.
Click to expand...
I'm not close to him now but I was at the time and don't recognise the version of him you paint. The club was a small business in those days and running on a shoe string. He did a good job in the context. And I don't believe we ever lied to the Stock Exchange. I was there for most of those sort of discussions. Which announcement are you referring to? And I don't recall any difficult conversations with the Panel but it is more than 20 years ago.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
There's another story about him, that illustrates his mendacity. He always claimed that he was from a City-supporting family but his father, who was a respected local government leader in Stoke then Hampshire, did an interview with his local paper in which he said they were united fans.

Then there was a snippet about him being a mascot at a match in Stoke, when they were playing united. He then claimed he was the Stoke mascot but someone (think it was Bill Borrows) got hold of a photo showing him as the united mascot.
Click to expand...
I worked closely with him for years. Never once thought he was a City fan.

BTW if this is the Takeover Code announcement you are referring to, it was true otherwise I wouldn't have put my name to it https://web.archive.org/web/2007052...om/story.shtml?ISIN=GB0005599336&NewsID=23836
 
slbsn said:
Fair. But I guess they would say there was more evidence. Or at least they had an excuse to seek more evidence in an investigation. Once investigated then presumably gave rise to a case to answer.
Click to expand...

I suppose there was always a case to answer as soon as the emails were leaked. The question is whether the case was sufficiently robust after the investigation to take it to the disciplinary panel or, at least, sufficiently robust that the PL couldn't just drop the whole thing.

It would be interesting to hear the PL's reasoning for proceeding if, as we all seem to think, they won't be successful on the most serious charges. Do you think that will be set out in the published document?
 
Can’t recall but we had quite a few time wasters around the early part of the process. Ranson could have been the one we had in mind then. Very little point in lying on a public announcement- could easily have put it into play by putting some stories out in the press that Wardle would sell. But maybe they didn’t tell me the truth if PB has other information.
 
Centurions said:
I'm totally bemused how people are losing their shit on here yet again.
Click to expand...
I'm not. This has been dragging on for a long time and patience levels differ. Some are on the edge and vent on here by jumping on any kind of negative post or an opinion that doesn't suit them. Others have just put it in the back of their minds and talk about anything none related. Whatever the outcome we have taken relentless digs and jabs from the press and other fans and it's tiring. Hopefully the result comes out before the start of the season and we move on whatever the outcome.
 
halfcenturyup said:
I suppose there was always a case to answer as soon as the emails were leaked. The question is whether the case was sufficiently robust after the investigation to take it to the disciplinary panel or, at least, sufficiently robust that the PL couldn't just drop the whole thing.

It would be interesting to hear the PL's reasoning for proceeding if, as we all seem to think, they won't be successful on the most serious charges. Do you think that will be set out in the published document?
Click to expand...
If I had to guess (ie DISCLAIMER: THIS IS A GUESS) even if the PL lose, the judgment will say that despite finding for City, the PL were entitled, if not obligated, to bring the charges. Unless the case is truly hopeless.
 
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