comment by Peter O'Hanraha-hanrahan (U1217)
posted 22 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Peter O'Hanraha-hanrahan (U1217)
posted 45 seconds ago
When there are 100 charges of failing to cooperate with investigations then one would imagine a hefty punishment is on the way eventually.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There aren’t 100 charges of failing to cooperate with investigations?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, 35 of failing to cooperate and 68 of failing to provide requested information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because they're innocent, that's why they didn't cooperate or provide information.
This is straightforward, City didn't cooperate and failed to provide information which they were required to do under the rules. They're definitely being found guilty of that IMO. The panel can then decide what punishment to give, and they're not limited. Could be a fine, could also be relegation to the conference.
comment by Peter O'Hanraha-hanrahan (U1217)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Peter O'Hanraha-hanrahan (U1217)
posted 45 seconds ago
When there are 100 charges of failing to cooperate with investigations then one would imagine a hefty punishment is on the way eventually.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There aren’t 100 charges of failing to cooperate with investigations?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, 35 of failing to cooperate and 68 of failing to provide requested information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There’s not that either!
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 47 seconds ago
comment by Peter O'Hanraha-hanrahan (U1217)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Peter O'Hanraha-hanrahan (U1217)
posted 45 seconds ago
When there are 100 charges of failing to cooperate with investigations then one would imagine a hefty punishment is on the way eventually.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There aren’t 100 charges of failing to cooperate with investigations?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, 35 of failing to cooperate and 68 of failing to provide requested information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There’s not that either!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.givemesport.com/football-soccer-man-city-ffp-charges-list/
Just getting it from here.
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
Did you read the thread?
Failing to declare manager & player remuneration is about 14 of the 115 charges.
Mancini has come out openly to refute this allegation but the PL thinks they have a smoking gun. So we have to wait and see.
=====
Are you stupid or something? Wait, why am I asking? Of course you're stupid.
The charge is failing to declare as you have written. What is Mancini denying? That City didn't fail to declare the remuneration?
Think about that for a minute as I don't want to waste time explaining.
City fans don't even know which way is up. Classic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why should City declare payments made to Mancini by a completely different entity for job done that had nothing to do with City?
Please tell us.
comment by mancini (U7179)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 47 minutes ago
OP doesn't even know what the charges are.
Some City fan he is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Did you read the thread?
Failing to declare manager & player remuneration is about 14 of the 115 charges.
Mancini has come out openly to refute this allegation but the PL thinks they have a smoking gun. So we have to wait and see.
Yaya Toure and his agent have also denied receiving any money under the table. Liverpool and United fans on social media refuse to accept his denial. As a result, the PL went ahead with the allegation. So I guess we have to wait and see the PL evidence.
Now, some United fans are even saying we paid more than £51m for Haaland. So Dortmund should get ready to be dragged into this mire.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You think the PL are acting on what they’ve read on Twitter?
Good grief, you’re mad.
comment by Peter O'Hanraha-hanrahan (U1217)
posted 28 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 47 seconds ago
comment by Peter O'Hanraha-hanrahan (U1217)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Peter O'Hanraha-hanrahan (U1217)
posted 45 seconds ago
When there are 100 charges of failing to cooperate with investigations then one would imagine a hefty punishment is on the way eventually.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There aren’t 100 charges of failing to cooperate with investigations?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, 35 of failing to cooperate and 68 of failing to provide requested information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There’s not that either!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.givemesport.com/football-soccer-man-city-ffp-charges-list/
Just getting it from here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That link quite obviously doesn’t say failure to provide requested information though, its failure with providing accurate information that’s been alleged.
comment by mancini (U7179)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Szoboss - Glory Days (U6997)
posted 3 minutes ago
Honestly OP, I doubt many genuinely believe much/any of this will stick. Perhaps a fine for failure to cooperate, not much more.
Maybe a handful of posters think that relegation/titles stripped is possible but that's the triumph of hope over expectation imo.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you read comments on the RAWK?
It's not a handful of posters but the majority.
They don't even want a fair trial.
"City should be relegated to the lower leagues" is all you read about there.
Many won't accept an outcome which exonerates City.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't read the comments on RAWK no. I went on there once, didn't go back.
I certainly wouldn't call the posters I saw representative of commonly held views.
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Peter O'Hanraha-hanrahan (U1217)
posted 22 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Peter O'Hanraha-hanrahan (U1217)
posted 45 seconds ago
When there are 100 charges of failing to cooperate with investigations then one would imagine a hefty punishment is on the way eventually.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There aren’t 100 charges of failing to cooperate with investigations?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, 35 of failing to cooperate and 68 of failing to provide requested information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because they're innocent, that's why they didn't cooperate or provide information.
This is straightforward, City didn't cooperate and failed to provide information which they were required to do under the rules. They're definitely being found guilty of that IMO. The panel can then decide what punishment to give, and they're not limited. Could be a fine, could also be relegation to the conference.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A typical bitter Liverpool fan who is desperate for City to be found guilty. I can assure that you will be disappointed at the end of the day.
It's clear you've not taken time to understand the allegations and the type of evidence that would be required to prove these allegations.
You're only interested in the 115 and assume that this magic number would mean City are guilty automatically.
Good luck with that.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 53 seconds ago
comment by Peter O'Hanraha-hanrahan (U1217)
posted 28 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 47 seconds ago
comment by Peter O'Hanraha-hanrahan (U1217)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Peter O'Hanraha-hanrahan (U1217)
posted 45 seconds ago
When there are 100 charges of failing to cooperate with investigations then one would imagine a hefty punishment is on the way eventually.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There aren’t 100 charges of failing to cooperate with investigations?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, 35 of failing to cooperate and 68 of failing to provide requested information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There’s not that either!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.givemesport.com/football-soccer-man-city-ffp-charges-list/
Just getting it from here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That link quite obviously doesn’t say failure to provide requested information though, its failure with providing accurate information that’s been alleged.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Still a failure to provide information they needed to provide though
comment by mancini (U7179)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
Did you read the thread?
Failing to declare manager & player remuneration is about 14 of the 115 charges.
Mancini has come out openly to refute this allegation but the PL thinks they have a smoking gun. So we have to wait and see.
=====
Are you stupid or something? Wait, why am I asking? Of course you're stupid.
The charge is failing to declare as you have written. What is Mancini denying? That City didn't fail to declare the remuneration?
Think about that for a minute as I don't want to waste time explaining.
City fans don't even know which way is up. Classic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why should City declare payments made to Mancini by a completely different entity for job done that had nothing to do with City?
Please tell us.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s the whole point, they’ve made things up so they could pay him more without having to put it through City’s books.
I've not read the OP or any of the following comments - which I'm sure were all fab - but City vs the PL would be craaazzzy, I can't even imagine it
comment by mancini (U7179)
posted 26 seconds ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Peter O'Hanraha-hanrahan (U1217)
posted 22 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Peter O'Hanraha-hanrahan (U1217)
posted 45 seconds ago
When there are 100 charges of failing to cooperate with investigations then one would imagine a hefty punishment is on the way eventually.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There aren’t 100 charges of failing to cooperate with investigations?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, 35 of failing to cooperate and 68 of failing to provide requested information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because they're innocent, that's why they didn't cooperate or provide information.
This is straightforward, City didn't cooperate and failed to provide information which they were required to do under the rules. They're definitely being found guilty of that IMO. The panel can then decide what punishment to give, and they're not limited. Could be a fine, could also be relegation to the conference.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A typical bitter Liverpool fan who is desperate for City to be found guilty. I can assure that you will be disappointed at the end of the day.
It's clear you've not taken time to understand the allegations and the type of evidence that would be required to prove these allegations.
You're only interested in the 115 and assume that this magic number would mean City are guilty automatically.
Good luck with that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
comment by Peter O'Hanraha-hanrahan (U1217)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 53 seconds ago
comment by Peter O'Hanraha-hanrahan (U1217)
posted 28 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 47 seconds ago
comment by Peter O'Hanraha-hanrahan (U1217)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Peter O'Hanraha-hanrahan (U1217)
posted 45 seconds ago
When there are 100 charges of failing to cooperate with investigations then one would imagine a hefty punishment is on the way eventually.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There aren’t 100 charges of failing to cooperate with investigations?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, 35 of failing to cooperate and 68 of failing to provide requested information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There’s not that either!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.givemesport.com/football-soccer-man-city-ffp-charges-list/
Just getting it from here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That link quite obviously doesn’t say failure to provide requested information though, its failure with providing accurate information that’s been alleged.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Still a failure to provide information they needed to provide though
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Eh? No it isn’t.
I don’t know anything about any of the charges but the fact that there is 113 (?) charges means the likelihood is City are guilty of at least one.
Really dont know why City fans are in so much denial over this.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Peter O'Hanraha-hanrahan (U1217)
posted 28 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 47 seconds ago
comment by Peter O'Hanraha-hanrahan (U1217)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Peter O'Hanraha-hanrahan (U1217)
posted 45 seconds ago
When there are 100 charges of failing to cooperate with investigations then one would imagine a hefty punishment is on the way eventually.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There aren’t 100 charges of failing to cooperate with investigations?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, 35 of failing to cooperate and 68 of failing to provide requested information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There’s not that either!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.givemesport.com/football-soccer-man-city-ffp-charges-list/
Just getting it from here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That link quite obviously doesn’t say failure to provide requested information though, its failure with providing accurate information that’s been alleged.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Kind of splitting hairs though, isn’t it? Giving the wrong information is as bad as giving none, surely?
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Peter O'Hanraha-hanrahan (U1217)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 53 seconds ago
comment by Peter O'Hanraha-hanrahan (U1217)
posted 28 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 47 seconds ago
comment by Peter O'Hanraha-hanrahan (U1217)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Peter O'Hanraha-hanrahan (U1217)
posted 45 seconds ago
When there are 100 charges of failing to cooperate with investigations then one would imagine a hefty punishment is on the way eventually.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There aren’t 100 charges of failing to cooperate with investigations?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, 35 of failing to cooperate and 68 of failing to provide requested information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There’s not that either!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.givemesport.com/football-soccer-man-city-ffp-charges-list/
Just getting it from here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That link quite obviously doesn’t say failure to provide requested information though, its failure with providing accurate information that’s been alleged.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Still a failure to provide information they needed to provide though
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Eh? No it isn’t.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course it is. They needed to provide accurate information and they haven't.
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 12 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Peter O'Hanraha-hanrahan (U1217)
posted 28 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 47 seconds ago
comment by Peter O'Hanraha-hanrahan (U1217)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Peter O'Hanraha-hanrahan (U1217)
posted 45 seconds ago
When there are 100 charges of failing to cooperate with investigations then one would imagine a hefty punishment is on the way eventually.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There aren’t 100 charges of failing to cooperate with investigations?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, 35 of failing to cooperate and 68 of failing to provide requested information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There’s not that either!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.givemesport.com/football-soccer-man-city-ffp-charges-list/
Just getting it from here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That link quite obviously doesn’t say failure to provide requested information though, its failure with providing accurate information that’s been alleged.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Kind of splitting hairs though, isn’t it? Giving the wrong information is as bad as giving none, surely?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t think so, I think they intimate completely different motivations. Failure to provide requested information would be linked to not complying with an investigation or a ruling around a date information has to be given by.
Failure to give accurate information is alleging the information provided (which is financial reports) has been falsely prepared, which is a far more serious thing.
Fair enough. Difficult to interpret exactly what was or wasn't provided from the wording I guess.
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by mancini (U7179)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
Did you read the thread?
Failing to declare manager & player remuneration is about 14 of the 115 charges.
Mancini has come out openly to refute this allegation but the PL thinks they have a smoking gun. So we have to wait and see.
=====
Are you stupid or something? Wait, why am I asking? Of course you're stupid.
The charge is failing to declare as you have written. What is Mancini denying? That City didn't fail to declare the remuneration?
Think about that for a minute as I don't want to waste time explaining.
City fans don't even know which way is up. Classic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why should City declare payments made to Mancini by a completely different entity for job done that had nothing to do with City?
Please tell us.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s the whole point, they’ve made things up so they could pay him more without having to put it through City’s books.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Even if what you stated were correct, how do you prove it?
Mancini signed a contract with Al Jazira prior to his stint with City. He delivered the terms of his contract and got paid.
Unless you have some secret recordings where the scheme was designed to escape adding just £1.7m to our books, I struggle to see how the PL are going to establish this case.
comment by Peter O'Hanraha-hanrahan (U1217)
posted 2 minutes ago
Fair enough. Difficult to interpret exactly what was or wasn't provided from the wording I guess.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There’s no accusation City didn’t file their acccounts on time or that they weren’t audited either. The accusations that you’re referring to are alleging a load of activity happened off the books basically.
comment by mancini (U7179)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by mancini (U7179)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
Did you read the thread?
Failing to declare manager & player remuneration is about 14 of the 115 charges.
Mancini has come out openly to refute this allegation but the PL thinks they have a smoking gun. So we have to wait and see.
=====
Are you stupid or something? Wait, why am I asking? Of course you're stupid.
The charge is failing to declare as you have written. What is Mancini denying? That City didn't fail to declare the remuneration?
Think about that for a minute as I don't want to waste time explaining.
City fans don't even know which way is up. Classic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why should City declare payments made to Mancini by a completely different entity for job done that had nothing to do with City?
Please tell us.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s the whole point, they’ve made things up so they could pay him more without having to put it through City’s books.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Even if what you stated were correct, how do you prove it?
Mancini signed a contract with Al Jazira prior to his stint with City. He delivered the terms of his contract and got paid.
Unless you have some secret recordings where the scheme was designed to escape adding just £1.7m to our books, I struggle to see how the PL are going to establish this case.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Think the bigger issue is potentially how he got paid for his Al Jazira contract.
A question in return for the City fans on the thread.
Do you think/believe City are completely clean, have done nothing wrong?
Or do you think/believe that the case can't be proved?
Because the two things aren't necessarily the same. I think many would be inclined to agree the the latter, very few the former.
They don't need to prove fack all. Who owns Al Jazira? Those payments should have been declared as per the rules.
City knew they needed declaration but didn't do so because it was all legit and above board.
comment by Szoboss - Glory Days (U6997)
posted 30 seconds ago
A question in return for the City fans on the thread.
Do you think/believe City are completely clean, have done nothing wrong?
Or do you think/believe that the case can't be proved?
Because the two things aren't necessarily the same. I think many would be inclined to agree the the latter, very few the former.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Personally, I think we’ll be found guilty for some of it (the non co-operation for sure) and probably not guilty for a lot of the rest but that’s only based on what’s in the public domain, no one knows what evidence the pl might have.
In terms of so I think they’ve been clean, not fully, no. I’m in a slightly different space to others though in that I don’t think much of it was actually a benefit to City or the motivations were solely about that and although I don’t personally see some of it as as bad as some think it is, I’d be more than a little annoyed with the owners if they did do some of the things alleged.
This thread is the internet version of Traitors.
Sign in if you want to comment
City vs the PL
Page 2 of 8
6 | 7 | 8
posted on 17/1/24
comment by Peter O'Hanraha-hanrahan (U1217)
posted 22 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Peter O'Hanraha-hanrahan (U1217)
posted 45 seconds ago
When there are 100 charges of failing to cooperate with investigations then one would imagine a hefty punishment is on the way eventually.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There aren’t 100 charges of failing to cooperate with investigations?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, 35 of failing to cooperate and 68 of failing to provide requested information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because they're innocent, that's why they didn't cooperate or provide information.
This is straightforward, City didn't cooperate and failed to provide information which they were required to do under the rules. They're definitely being found guilty of that IMO. The panel can then decide what punishment to give, and they're not limited. Could be a fine, could also be relegation to the conference.
posted on 17/1/24
comment by Peter O'Hanraha-hanrahan (U1217)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Peter O'Hanraha-hanrahan (U1217)
posted 45 seconds ago
When there are 100 charges of failing to cooperate with investigations then one would imagine a hefty punishment is on the way eventually.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There aren’t 100 charges of failing to cooperate with investigations?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, 35 of failing to cooperate and 68 of failing to provide requested information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There’s not that either!
posted on 17/1/24
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 47 seconds ago
comment by Peter O'Hanraha-hanrahan (U1217)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Peter O'Hanraha-hanrahan (U1217)
posted 45 seconds ago
When there are 100 charges of failing to cooperate with investigations then one would imagine a hefty punishment is on the way eventually.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There aren’t 100 charges of failing to cooperate with investigations?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, 35 of failing to cooperate and 68 of failing to provide requested information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There’s not that either!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.givemesport.com/football-soccer-man-city-ffp-charges-list/
Just getting it from here.
posted on 17/1/24
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
Did you read the thread?
Failing to declare manager & player remuneration is about 14 of the 115 charges.
Mancini has come out openly to refute this allegation but the PL thinks they have a smoking gun. So we have to wait and see.
=====
Are you stupid or something? Wait, why am I asking? Of course you're stupid.
The charge is failing to declare as you have written. What is Mancini denying? That City didn't fail to declare the remuneration?
Think about that for a minute as I don't want to waste time explaining.
City fans don't even know which way is up. Classic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why should City declare payments made to Mancini by a completely different entity for job done that had nothing to do with City?
Please tell us.
posted on 17/1/24
comment by mancini (U7179)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 47 minutes ago
OP doesn't even know what the charges are.
Some City fan he is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Did you read the thread?
Failing to declare manager & player remuneration is about 14 of the 115 charges.
Mancini has come out openly to refute this allegation but the PL thinks they have a smoking gun. So we have to wait and see.
Yaya Toure and his agent have also denied receiving any money under the table. Liverpool and United fans on social media refuse to accept his denial. As a result, the PL went ahead with the allegation. So I guess we have to wait and see the PL evidence.
Now, some United fans are even saying we paid more than £51m for Haaland. So Dortmund should get ready to be dragged into this mire.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You think the PL are acting on what they’ve read on Twitter?
Good grief, you’re mad.
posted on 17/1/24
comment by Peter O'Hanraha-hanrahan (U1217)
posted 28 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 47 seconds ago
comment by Peter O'Hanraha-hanrahan (U1217)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Peter O'Hanraha-hanrahan (U1217)
posted 45 seconds ago
When there are 100 charges of failing to cooperate with investigations then one would imagine a hefty punishment is on the way eventually.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There aren’t 100 charges of failing to cooperate with investigations?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, 35 of failing to cooperate and 68 of failing to provide requested information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There’s not that either!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.givemesport.com/football-soccer-man-city-ffp-charges-list/
Just getting it from here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That link quite obviously doesn’t say failure to provide requested information though, its failure with providing accurate information that’s been alleged.
posted on 17/1/24
comment by mancini (U7179)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Szoboss - Glory Days (U6997)
posted 3 minutes ago
Honestly OP, I doubt many genuinely believe much/any of this will stick. Perhaps a fine for failure to cooperate, not much more.
Maybe a handful of posters think that relegation/titles stripped is possible but that's the triumph of hope over expectation imo.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you read comments on the RAWK?
It's not a handful of posters but the majority.
They don't even want a fair trial.
"City should be relegated to the lower leagues" is all you read about there.
Many won't accept an outcome which exonerates City.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't read the comments on RAWK no. I went on there once, didn't go back.
I certainly wouldn't call the posters I saw representative of commonly held views.
posted on 17/1/24
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Peter O'Hanraha-hanrahan (U1217)
posted 22 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Peter O'Hanraha-hanrahan (U1217)
posted 45 seconds ago
When there are 100 charges of failing to cooperate with investigations then one would imagine a hefty punishment is on the way eventually.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There aren’t 100 charges of failing to cooperate with investigations?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, 35 of failing to cooperate and 68 of failing to provide requested information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because they're innocent, that's why they didn't cooperate or provide information.
This is straightforward, City didn't cooperate and failed to provide information which they were required to do under the rules. They're definitely being found guilty of that IMO. The panel can then decide what punishment to give, and they're not limited. Could be a fine, could also be relegation to the conference.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A typical bitter Liverpool fan who is desperate for City to be found guilty. I can assure that you will be disappointed at the end of the day.
It's clear you've not taken time to understand the allegations and the type of evidence that would be required to prove these allegations.
You're only interested in the 115 and assume that this magic number would mean City are guilty automatically.
Good luck with that.
posted on 17/1/24
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 53 seconds ago
comment by Peter O'Hanraha-hanrahan (U1217)
posted 28 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 47 seconds ago
comment by Peter O'Hanraha-hanrahan (U1217)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Peter O'Hanraha-hanrahan (U1217)
posted 45 seconds ago
When there are 100 charges of failing to cooperate with investigations then one would imagine a hefty punishment is on the way eventually.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There aren’t 100 charges of failing to cooperate with investigations?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, 35 of failing to cooperate and 68 of failing to provide requested information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There’s not that either!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.givemesport.com/football-soccer-man-city-ffp-charges-list/
Just getting it from here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That link quite obviously doesn’t say failure to provide requested information though, its failure with providing accurate information that’s been alleged.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Still a failure to provide information they needed to provide though
posted on 17/1/24
comment by mancini (U7179)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
Did you read the thread?
Failing to declare manager & player remuneration is about 14 of the 115 charges.
Mancini has come out openly to refute this allegation but the PL thinks they have a smoking gun. So we have to wait and see.
=====
Are you stupid or something? Wait, why am I asking? Of course you're stupid.
The charge is failing to declare as you have written. What is Mancini denying? That City didn't fail to declare the remuneration?
Think about that for a minute as I don't want to waste time explaining.
City fans don't even know which way is up. Classic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why should City declare payments made to Mancini by a completely different entity for job done that had nothing to do with City?
Please tell us.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s the whole point, they’ve made things up so they could pay him more without having to put it through City’s books.
posted on 17/1/24
I've not read the OP or any of the following comments - which I'm sure were all fab - but City vs the PL would be craaazzzy, I can't even imagine it
posted on 17/1/24
comment by mancini (U7179)
posted 26 seconds ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Peter O'Hanraha-hanrahan (U1217)
posted 22 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Peter O'Hanraha-hanrahan (U1217)
posted 45 seconds ago
When there are 100 charges of failing to cooperate with investigations then one would imagine a hefty punishment is on the way eventually.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There aren’t 100 charges of failing to cooperate with investigations?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, 35 of failing to cooperate and 68 of failing to provide requested information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because they're innocent, that's why they didn't cooperate or provide information.
This is straightforward, City didn't cooperate and failed to provide information which they were required to do under the rules. They're definitely being found guilty of that IMO. The panel can then decide what punishment to give, and they're not limited. Could be a fine, could also be relegation to the conference.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A typical bitter Liverpool fan who is desperate for City to be found guilty. I can assure that you will be disappointed at the end of the day.
It's clear you've not taken time to understand the allegations and the type of evidence that would be required to prove these allegations.
You're only interested in the 115 and assume that this magic number would mean City are guilty automatically.
Good luck with that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
posted on 17/1/24
comment by Peter O'Hanraha-hanrahan (U1217)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 53 seconds ago
comment by Peter O'Hanraha-hanrahan (U1217)
posted 28 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 47 seconds ago
comment by Peter O'Hanraha-hanrahan (U1217)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Peter O'Hanraha-hanrahan (U1217)
posted 45 seconds ago
When there are 100 charges of failing to cooperate with investigations then one would imagine a hefty punishment is on the way eventually.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There aren’t 100 charges of failing to cooperate with investigations?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, 35 of failing to cooperate and 68 of failing to provide requested information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There’s not that either!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.givemesport.com/football-soccer-man-city-ffp-charges-list/
Just getting it from here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That link quite obviously doesn’t say failure to provide requested information though, its failure with providing accurate information that’s been alleged.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Still a failure to provide information they needed to provide though
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Eh? No it isn’t.
posted on 17/1/24
I don’t know anything about any of the charges but the fact that there is 113 (?) charges means the likelihood is City are guilty of at least one.
Really dont know why City fans are in so much denial over this.
posted on 17/1/24
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Peter O'Hanraha-hanrahan (U1217)
posted 28 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 47 seconds ago
comment by Peter O'Hanraha-hanrahan (U1217)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Peter O'Hanraha-hanrahan (U1217)
posted 45 seconds ago
When there are 100 charges of failing to cooperate with investigations then one would imagine a hefty punishment is on the way eventually.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There aren’t 100 charges of failing to cooperate with investigations?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, 35 of failing to cooperate and 68 of failing to provide requested information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There’s not that either!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.givemesport.com/football-soccer-man-city-ffp-charges-list/
Just getting it from here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That link quite obviously doesn’t say failure to provide requested information though, its failure with providing accurate information that’s been alleged.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Kind of splitting hairs though, isn’t it? Giving the wrong information is as bad as giving none, surely?
posted on 17/1/24
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Peter O'Hanraha-hanrahan (U1217)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 53 seconds ago
comment by Peter O'Hanraha-hanrahan (U1217)
posted 28 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 47 seconds ago
comment by Peter O'Hanraha-hanrahan (U1217)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Peter O'Hanraha-hanrahan (U1217)
posted 45 seconds ago
When there are 100 charges of failing to cooperate with investigations then one would imagine a hefty punishment is on the way eventually.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There aren’t 100 charges of failing to cooperate with investigations?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, 35 of failing to cooperate and 68 of failing to provide requested information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There’s not that either!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.givemesport.com/football-soccer-man-city-ffp-charges-list/
Just getting it from here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That link quite obviously doesn’t say failure to provide requested information though, its failure with providing accurate information that’s been alleged.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Still a failure to provide information they needed to provide though
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Eh? No it isn’t.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course it is. They needed to provide accurate information and they haven't.
posted on 17/1/24
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 12 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Peter O'Hanraha-hanrahan (U1217)
posted 28 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 47 seconds ago
comment by Peter O'Hanraha-hanrahan (U1217)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Peter O'Hanraha-hanrahan (U1217)
posted 45 seconds ago
When there are 100 charges of failing to cooperate with investigations then one would imagine a hefty punishment is on the way eventually.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There aren’t 100 charges of failing to cooperate with investigations?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, 35 of failing to cooperate and 68 of failing to provide requested information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There’s not that either!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.givemesport.com/football-soccer-man-city-ffp-charges-list/
Just getting it from here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That link quite obviously doesn’t say failure to provide requested information though, its failure with providing accurate information that’s been alleged.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Kind of splitting hairs though, isn’t it? Giving the wrong information is as bad as giving none, surely?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t think so, I think they intimate completely different motivations. Failure to provide requested information would be linked to not complying with an investigation or a ruling around a date information has to be given by.
Failure to give accurate information is alleging the information provided (which is financial reports) has been falsely prepared, which is a far more serious thing.
posted on 17/1/24
Fair enough. Difficult to interpret exactly what was or wasn't provided from the wording I guess.
posted on 17/1/24
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by mancini (U7179)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
Did you read the thread?
Failing to declare manager & player remuneration is about 14 of the 115 charges.
Mancini has come out openly to refute this allegation but the PL thinks they have a smoking gun. So we have to wait and see.
=====
Are you stupid or something? Wait, why am I asking? Of course you're stupid.
The charge is failing to declare as you have written. What is Mancini denying? That City didn't fail to declare the remuneration?
Think about that for a minute as I don't want to waste time explaining.
City fans don't even know which way is up. Classic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why should City declare payments made to Mancini by a completely different entity for job done that had nothing to do with City?
Please tell us.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s the whole point, they’ve made things up so they could pay him more without having to put it through City’s books.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Even if what you stated were correct, how do you prove it?
Mancini signed a contract with Al Jazira prior to his stint with City. He delivered the terms of his contract and got paid.
Unless you have some secret recordings where the scheme was designed to escape adding just £1.7m to our books, I struggle to see how the PL are going to establish this case.
posted on 17/1/24
comment by Peter O'Hanraha-hanrahan (U1217)
posted 2 minutes ago
Fair enough. Difficult to interpret exactly what was or wasn't provided from the wording I guess.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There’s no accusation City didn’t file their acccounts on time or that they weren’t audited either. The accusations that you’re referring to are alleging a load of activity happened off the books basically.
posted on 17/1/24
comment by mancini (U7179)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by mancini (U7179)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - "When the facts are in your favour, you argue the facts. When facts are not in your favour you argue the process." (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
Did you read the thread?
Failing to declare manager & player remuneration is about 14 of the 115 charges.
Mancini has come out openly to refute this allegation but the PL thinks they have a smoking gun. So we have to wait and see.
=====
Are you stupid or something? Wait, why am I asking? Of course you're stupid.
The charge is failing to declare as you have written. What is Mancini denying? That City didn't fail to declare the remuneration?
Think about that for a minute as I don't want to waste time explaining.
City fans don't even know which way is up. Classic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why should City declare payments made to Mancini by a completely different entity for job done that had nothing to do with City?
Please tell us.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s the whole point, they’ve made things up so they could pay him more without having to put it through City’s books.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Even if what you stated were correct, how do you prove it?
Mancini signed a contract with Al Jazira prior to his stint with City. He delivered the terms of his contract and got paid.
Unless you have some secret recordings where the scheme was designed to escape adding just £1.7m to our books, I struggle to see how the PL are going to establish this case.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Think the bigger issue is potentially how he got paid for his Al Jazira contract.
posted on 17/1/24
A question in return for the City fans on the thread.
Do you think/believe City are completely clean, have done nothing wrong?
Or do you think/believe that the case can't be proved?
Because the two things aren't necessarily the same. I think many would be inclined to agree the the latter, very few the former.
posted on 17/1/24
They don't need to prove fack all. Who owns Al Jazira? Those payments should have been declared as per the rules.
City knew they needed declaration but didn't do so because it was all legit and above board.
posted on 17/1/24
comment by Szoboss - Glory Days (U6997)
posted 30 seconds ago
A question in return for the City fans on the thread.
Do you think/believe City are completely clean, have done nothing wrong?
Or do you think/believe that the case can't be proved?
Because the two things aren't necessarily the same. I think many would be inclined to agree the the latter, very few the former.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Personally, I think we’ll be found guilty for some of it (the non co-operation for sure) and probably not guilty for a lot of the rest but that’s only based on what’s in the public domain, no one knows what evidence the pl might have.
In terms of so I think they’ve been clean, not fully, no. I’m in a slightly different space to others though in that I don’t think much of it was actually a benefit to City or the motivations were solely about that and although I don’t personally see some of it as as bad as some think it is, I’d be more than a little annoyed with the owners if they did do some of the things alleged.
posted on 17/1/24
This thread is the internet version of Traitors.
Page 2 of 8
6 | 7 | 8