Zatman Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 If City have swung for the Premier well then is absolutely no incentive to give a lenient penalty. Need to get as harsh as possible 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duke313 Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 1 minute ago, Zatman said: If City have swung for the Premier well then is absolutely no incentive to give a lenient penalty. Need to get as harsh as possible What if they win? FFP gets scrapped, and their charges will be dropped. Must be their aim, as seems like a last throw of the dice move if charges are coming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 2 minutes ago, duke313 said: What if they win? FFP gets scrapped, and their charges will be dropped. Must be their aim, as seems like a last throw of the dice move if charges are coming. If they win the Premier League loses even further credibility that they cant govern there own league Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Townsend Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 'Tyranny of the majority'! Remind me how democratic they are? FFS 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imavillan Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 I think Justin sums it up Well this is going to be a game changer one way or another !!! City lose and have the book thrown at them. This is presumably why they have launched this counter attack.. Or they win, and they obviously think they can, and as one of my friends who knows his stuff has just pointed out FFP could be found to be a restriction of trade.And it could be scrapped. Biggest case since Bosman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted June 4 VT Supporter Share Posted June 4 Iirc Citeh's wrongdoing isn't purely a football related matter, they're actually potentially guilty of 'real' financial crimes, so even if they got the sporting matter to be resolved they'd still have potential issues. This is a significant part of the reason why government has been involved in the case - it's bigger than the game and it's bigger than just a minor diplomatic case and slamming that 'doesn't really matter' if it blows up. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fightoffyour Posted June 4 VT Supporter Share Posted June 4 (edited) They could surely still be charged for breaching the rules that were in place, even if those rules are later dropped? Besides, they have been charged for other matters like non compliance. Edited June 4 by fightoffyour Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
479Villan Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 Wait, I'm confused, does City's action start on 6/10 or the hearing on their 115 charges? I am not an English lawyer, but I know courts here wouldn't be thrilled about you filing some kind of disruptor separate lawsuit a few days before your hearing. Also lol at "tyranny of the majority" coming from a bunch of monarchs. I mean, I get their fear though: considering the French invented a pretty good monarchy correction device and implemented it via the majority..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post est1874 Posted June 4 Popular Post Share Posted June 4 The Donald Trump of football clubs. 10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 (edited) 43 minutes ago, Zatman said: If City have swung for the Premier well then is absolutely no incentive to give a lenient penalty. Need to get as harsh as possible City thinking the best form of defence is attack I assume. They throw some shit at the PL, then they agree to drop the whole thing if the PL do the same… let’s see. Edited June 4 by Genie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 26 minutes ago, 479Villan said: Wait, I'm confused, does City's action start on 6/10 or the hearing on their 115 charges? I am not an English lawyer, but I know courts here wouldn't be thrilled about you filing some kind of disruptor separate lawsuit a few days before your hearing. Also lol at "tyranny of the majority" coming from a bunch of monarchs. I mean, I get their fear though: considering the French invented a pretty good monarchy correction device and implemented it via the majority..... It’s a private hearing I think, so not in the usual law courts. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teale's 'tache Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 13 minutes ago, est1874 said: The Donald Trump of football clubs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJonah Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 16 minutes ago, est1874 said: The Donald Trump of football clubs. Exactly what I thought Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 Quote City argue that the Premier League have failed to provide evidence that sponsorship deals with related parties give clubs an unfair advantage or distort the league’s competitive balance 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teale's 'tache Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 Honestly, I'm surprised, it feels like the first time City have blinked on this. Going from claiming complete innocence to taking legal action against the league and the rules they are being charged under is quite the about-turn. I just thought they'd throw all the money at the best lawyers to make it go away. Obviously, the league must have a very strong case, one they can't wriggle out of, so they are just going to drop this legal bomb and see what happens. Should City even be allowed to take part in the league while this is going on? So many questions, it's an unprecedented situation. Feels like this could potentially be a huge moment in the future of football in this country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post rodders0223 Posted June 4 Popular Post Share Posted June 4 Get these words removed out the football pyramid. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 6 minutes ago, Davkaus said: That does feel like one of those stupid "prove it" things where it's so blatantly obvious to anyone with half a brain cell yet actually legally proving it is difficult to do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 3 minutes ago, villa4europe said: That does feel like one of those stupid "prove it" things where it's so blatantly obvious to anyone with half a brain cell yet actually legally proving it is difficult to do Seems to me like they're desperately throwing as much shit at the wall as they can and hoping some sticks. This is giving me a bit of hope that the case against them and the punishment might have some serious teeth, we can only hope 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa89 Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 (edited) 1 hour ago, duke313 said: What if they win? FFP gets scrapped, and their charges will be dropped. Must be their aim, as seems like a last throw of the dice move if charges are coming. My guess is their lawyers have now accepted they will lose so it's time to get FFP scrapped entirely. They tried this before when the UK was in the EU as FFP is clearly a restraint of trade but I don't know what the legalities are in the UK. Worst case for city is it delays everything for another three years. One thing to note is that city signed up to the FFP rules in the first place. That would hugely harm any case against FFP now you would imagine. Edited June 4 by villa89 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreveryoung Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 Thought they were supposed to be innocent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts