PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Citizen of Legoland said:
In an attempt to move the discussion on, I remember the PL having a bit of a whinge about the length of time the process was taking. Have City’s side made any similar murmurings that you know of?

I’ve always thought this process begun by the PL would be self-defeating even if they won. I mean it would make a mockery of the league that a team could bypass its rules for 15 years (or whatever it is now) to gain a sporting advantage and either a) those rules were impossible to enforce within a reasonable timeframe or b) they were too far-reaching. Who’s to say that a team isn’t up to no good as we speak and we end up in another round of legal shenanigans.
Click to expand...
Don't know. Suspect it would be futile anyway.
 
Coatigan said:
For the benefit of others, the context of the question when I asked it (now wish I hadn't, had I KNOWN it would lead to you having a shitty morning!), was the suggestion (not even mine) of the theoretical possibly that they may have moved on to combine the liability and penalty verdicts, and whether that could be read from the perceived length to get the verdict out. To which a Friday or even the week here or there is completely immaterial.

I maintain the question was genuine, but will know, sorry KNOW, in the future what that means and what conviction it is said with. Apologies for the hassle caused.
Click to expand...
Realistically, there was no way they could have dealt with sanction submissions in the original hearing. There were so many potential findings as to liability that it would be a pointless exercise having parties pitching mitigating and aggravating factors for things that may or may not have been established. Your question, as I understood it, was whether the liability decision has been distributed to the parties and, secretly, the parties are now onto the sanction piece. The answer on that was no.
 
Citizen of Legoland said:
In an attempt to move the discussion on, I remember the PL having a bit of a whinge about the length of time the process was taking. Have City’s side made any similar murmurings that you know of?

I’ve always thought this process begun by the PL would be self-defeating even if they won. I mean it would make a mockery of the league that a team could bypass its rules for 15 years (or whatever it is now) to gain a sporting advantage and either a) those rules were impossible to enforce within a reasonable timeframe or b) they were too far-reaching. Who’s to say that a team isn’t up to no good as we speak and we end up in another round of legal shenanigans.
Click to expand...

The club, from Pep to big Khaldo, have consistently said they'd like the verdict out as soon as possible. Not the same as grumbling about it, granted, but if you believe them then can probably take that as not being over the moon with how long this is taking.
 
Coatigan said:
The club, from Pep to big Khaldo, have consistently said they'd like the verdict out as soon as possible. Not the same as grumbling about it, granted, but if you believe them then can probably take that as not being over the moon with how long this is taking.
Click to expand...
But I think that comes from the weight of the accusations rather than the duration of decision so is understandable. I thought the PL were ill advised to be moaning about a process they requested.
 
slbsn said:
I don't care what you believe. You have no idea who I speak to but if you really think I would be so firm based on questionable, dubious or third hand information, you are a fool. Nor do I speak to one person. Your constant responses on this stuff are so tiresome. Obviously I am an idiot wasting my time sharing useful information on here when some are desperate to live in wild speculation and conspiracy but I know quite a few people are reading and are grateful.

KNOW is the right word. If it wasn't, I wouldn't use it.
Click to expand...
I appreciate your information and accept it in good faith. This forum is a valuable crowdsourcing tool and is usually reliable. There are many thousands of members and some of them work at the club, some know players, some know Directors and former Directors, some work in the media, some are lawyers, some work for sponsors or sub contractors, some have contacts with agents, or even rival clubs. When you add up all the little nuggets of information you get pretty close to the truth. Most of the info about the CAS case turned out to be spot-on. The info on here is generally much more accurate than anything in the mainstream media. You are a trusted source as far as I’m concerned.
 
Last edited:
Coatigan said:
The club, from Pep to big Khaldo, have consistently said they'd like the verdict out as soon as possible. Not the same as grumbling about it, granted, but if you believe them then can probably take that as not being over the moon with how long this is taking.
Click to expand...
The only way Mr Ks management have been able to get the PL to accept fairness within its rules is to insist that it's own Appeals process is run according to UK law.
All the existing and changing rules should be the same but City are appealing only on the rules that affect City. Other teams may have issues but it is up to them to make it UK law legal.

We can do little about compliance with football rules that seem to only apply to City in their rigidity but we are still capable of winning things.
 
halfcenturyup said:
This will probably annoy you and I am prepared for the inevitable backlash.

You don't KNOW anything of the sort. You only KNOW what you have been told. There are only a handful of people so involved in this process that they KNOW what is really happening on a day-to-day basis so everybody else is just repeating what that handful of people want them to hear. I don't know how high up the information chain you are - second hand, third hand (probably quite high in view of your new role) - but unless you are first hand it doesn't matter. You are just repeating something you have been told.

Framing it that way doesn't make it less useful information.

I am not questioning your assessment of what you have been told, by the way - I can imagine it's probably right - just the way you present it.
Click to expand...
The key point is not the number of people who know the final wording of the verdict - which I suspect now far exceeds the three members of the panel btw - but those who know the substantive outcome of the charges. It is simply inconceivable that both parties haven't known exactly what is coming for a long time.
 
johnny crossan said:
The key point is not the number of people who know the final wording of the verdict - which I suspect now far exceeds the three members of the panel btw - but those who know the substantive outcome of the charges. It is simply inconceivable that both parties haven't known exactly what is coming for a long time.
Click to expand...
The only thing that is known by the 2 parties is that 1 will be happy and the other won't, once the outcome is known at some point in the future.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
You’ll get change out of £700 if you fancy one.

shop.edeandravenscroft.com

Horsehair Bar Wig

Made in England by our wig makers using the same hand method patented by Humphrey Ravenscroft in 1822. The traditional style of wig is the horsehair bar wig. The peaked front horsehair bar wig is a variation on the traditional style with a slight peak at the centre of the forehead. The frizz top...
shop.edeandravenscroft.com shop.edeandravenscroft.com

Bit more if you want a frizz top one.

shop.edeandravenscroft.com

Frizz Top Horsehair Bar Wig

Made in England by our wig makers using the same hand method patented by Humphrey Ravenscroft in 1822. The traditional style of wig is the horsehair bar wig. The peaked front horsehair bar wig is a variation on the traditional style with a slight peak at the centre of the forehead. The frizz top...
shop.edeandravenscroft.com shop.edeandravenscroft.com
Click to expand...
Image paying £2700 for the frizz top only for the legal profession to move out of the 17th century and do away with them! Mind you, considering it must be a taxable expense, it will be small change for our learned friends.
 
Sheikh rattle and roll said:
Perhaps in my professional opinion would be better for you !
Oh and he certainly has the experience and knowledge and it appears the contacts as well
Click to expand...

Youve assumed that I was talking about Stefan only, it was a generalisation about people who provide good information from ITKs. Lots of people have good contacts but they can’t be certain until after the event what they are being fed is accurate.

I’m always mindful of Sturidge getting his ban due to passing information onto a relative which turned out to be wrong.
 
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