PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Vester said:
Its sounds a bit optimistic to me that the club just saying they will clear their name is a "pretty strong hint at the outcome". Can't imagine any scenario the club would say anything else before we have even seen a verdict.

With that said, we all hope they are correct.
Click to expand...
Well they could have said nothing or something non commital such as ‘the club will fight the accusations’
 
Kinkybyname said:
View attachment 171828
Click to expand...

Probably just nonsense, but let's say there's something in it.

Could it just be a general feeling about the case, due to how things are being reported over there compared to here?

Over here, any neutral reading media articles would probably assume we're guilty. I'm sure the case is reported differently over there, and this could lead to different expectations about the outcome.
 
mancboy said:
has he genuinely said that? as thats slander, no ifs, no buts, no maybes, ronay hand in your credentials and dont let the door hit you on the way out.
Click to expand...
He has never said it in those words but that is what he essentially says in every article about us. So more of a summary of his comments.
 
mancboy said:
has he genuinely said that? as thats slander, no ifs, no buts, no maybes, ronay hand in your credentials and dont let the door hit you on the way out.
Click to expand...
He has never said it in those words but that is what he essentially says in every article about us. So more of a summary of his comments.
 
jockblue said:
I know you've been consistant in the "not material" aspects of the Mancini and other parts of the charges, but there is a glass-half-empty view I have that materiality, whilst important to us accountants, will not stop a guilty verdict and punishment, and the continued "cheat" campaign, even if we only "made" £3.50 out of the whole thing. Which is, of course, part of the reason for the charges in the first place.
Click to expand...

For Mancini, the allegations can only really be that the second contract was part of the irregularities which have led to the accounts not giving a true and fair view (in which case the irregularities, taken together, must be material on an annual basis - that would have to be a big number) or it must break the rules in respect of manager remuneration (there were no rules to report a second contract at the time).

In any case, unless the panel think the second contract was fraudulent and without commercial basis, then it will be time limited anyway. I would be surprised if the club didn't get tax and legal clearances for such a contract. Then again, I am surprised they let themselves get hacked so easily ....

Anyway, in conclusion, I don't think there is much to worry about with Mancini.
 
mattcity5 said:
Probably just nonsense, but let's say there's something in it.

Could it just be a general feeling about the case, due to how things are being reported over there compared to here?

Over here, any neutral reading media articles would probably assume we're guilty. I'm sure the case is reported differently over there, and this could lead to different expectations about the outcome.
Click to expand...

Quite. Would you give any credence to someone saying "Feeling in the UK is that City are guilty"? No, me neither.
 
Ric said:
I presume our "irrefutable proof" is just the evidence that we presented at CAS (i.e. audited accounts and witness testimony). I doubt there's anything new that is going to significantly shift the dial in public perception. Unless we're booted out of the league and stripped of trophies, then fans of other clubs are going to claim it's a fudge regardless.
Click to expand...

And that's the damage from a PR point of view. We could be exonerated by Mother Teresa but Deano in Farnborough would still say we've paid her off.
 
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