PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

blueste41 said:
Is it a matter of factual public record that City were offered a deal? Their aren't 115 different charges, rather the same charges allegedly breached over a number of season and in some cases multiple times in the same season that make up the number to 115. Both the complainant and the plaintiff are always confident they will win in advance of the case being heard, saying "to be honest I don't think we have a leg to land on" wouldn't be wise ;)
Click to expand...

It’s still 115. If they were that confident you wouldn’t repeat the years, you’d prove your case & win & then repeat.
 
Nicholas van Whatsisface said:
You’re absolutely spot on that they have previous on continuing your hammer the position that they’ve won - even when anyone with half a brain can see that they’ve lost.

And of course I wouldn’t expect them to say they were fucked.

I’d expect them to say nothing.

They didn’t.
Click to expand...
Well what did they say then? And what was it a response to?
 
Nicholas van Whatsisface said:
Did the PL actually offer City a deal though?

There’s absolutely no credible evidence to suggest they did - or at least not that I’ve ever seen.

Your second point is right though, and I did reflect that in my post.

They come across as a colossally arrogant and entitled organisation, so then being overconfident based on nothing more than their own lofty opinions of themselves would be entirely consistent with all that bluster and bravado.
Click to expand...
An organisation that apparently employs very senior people with no discretion who just want to look “in the know”
 
They are frauds no nought on here when they say we getting the outcome on a certain day and they are frauds when they think they are clever using AI to make them look like they know! They don’t no one knows till it’s announced end off!
 
CC1 said:
What they should have done - if they really are SENIOR people in the PL - is say nothing. How senior are they because I would think that only the panel know the possible outcome at the moment. Not some executive with a loose tongue.
They really should be exposed for their lack of professionalism - so come on - name them.
Click to expand...
No doubt all the PL justification for allegations will be allowed by our legal team and City if we get the results we want.
I have little doubt City want the PL to survive but in a different form.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CC1
cheekybids said:
It’s still 115. If they were that confident you wouldn’t repeat the years, you’d prove your case & win & then repeat.
Click to expand...
That's nonsense, they would still have to prove we broke the rules in each and every year. Your notion potentially prejudices City by saying if they did it in year "a" that proves they did it in years "b, c, d".
 
Stoned Rose said:
Nope.

He shoehorns them in much earlier than that section.

“Ultimately, the Premier League is a commercial enterprise. City was the highest revenue generating Premier League club in 2023/24 (€838 million), at least €67 million higher than Manchester United, and so the Premier League may be pragmatic in the sanction it seeks”

Snide little suggestion that we couldn’t possibly have bigger revenue than those cunts. He sets the scene as being a rag right there.
Click to expand...
Or it shows how we have overcome the once giant club? To me it's a snide little suggestion that we have overcome the rags as the greatest force in football.
 
Ffs Same old garbage
Every Day regarding all this 115 crap
Why don't you all just stop and chill
Whatever anyone posts on here I doubt is going to
Push any Decision Through Quicker
Some of you really are obsessed!
There's nothing to do except wait
 
CC1 said:
What they should have done - if they really are SENIOR people in the PL - is say nothing. How senior are they because I would think that only the panel know the possible outcome at the moment. Not some executive with a loose tongue.
They really should be exposed for their lack of professionalism - so come on - name them.
Click to expand...

If you genuinely think I have any interest in naming anyone, you’re wasting your time.

I couldn’t give a fuck if some bloke on the internet believes me or not because I haven’t provided names.

Take it or leave it - that’s up to you - but you shouting about it because it doesn’t fit the prevailing narrative isn’t going to make it any less true.
 
citizen_maine said:
Interesting that all of the implications appear to relate to us being found to have breached the rules
Click to expand...

Yes. A little gratuitous. Nothing at all about the standard of proof and how difficult it will be for the PL to meet it but 1,000 words on the implications if the allegations are proven.

Interesting that he specifically says there may be a connection between the APT and the 115 cases.

Also interesting that he didn't mention at all about this being an award on liability only.

He either knows something or, more likely, he doesn't know anything.

Also why do all lawyers look like complete cunts. Present company excepted, of course.
 
blueste41 said:
That's nonsense, they would still have to prove we broke the rules in each and every year. Your notion potentially prejudices City by saying if they did it in year "a" that proves they did it in years "b, c, d".
Click to expand...

It’s not nonsense they could prove the charges from 2009 & then charge us again for 2010 & so on.
 
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