nobody pay 10k/nr lawyer ifthey r knot gillty
How much are the Prem paying their lawyer?
comment by #4zA (U22472)
posted 5 hours, 27 minutes ago
nobody pay 10k/nr lawyer ifthey r knot gillty
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Eggs Act Leigh
The whole case is riddled with 'Super Injuctions' according to various rumours and the Prem has already spent over £10m in legal fees.
If/when City are cleared, the other 19 clubs may be picking up a tab in excess of £60m, which is pretty unfair on clubs like Palace, Brighton. Brentford etc who played no part in bringing this on.
comment by #4zA (U22472)
posted 6 hours, 29 minutes ago
nobody pay 10k/nr lawyer ifthey r knot gillty
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You pay what it takes to prove your innocence knowing that the losing side has to pick up the bill.
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 15 minutes ago
The whole case is riddled with 'Super Injuctions' according to various rumours and the Prem has already spent over £10m in legal fees.
If/when City are cleared, the other 19 clubs may be picking up a tab in excess of £60m, which is pretty unfair on clubs like Palace, Brighton. Brentford etc who played no part in bringing this on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
City fan concerned about what is unfair for other clubs
comment by Half a Big Bite - Darwin's it! (U7237)
posted 5 seconds ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 15 minutes ago
The whole case is riddled with 'Super Injuctions' according to various rumours and the Prem has already spent over £10m in legal fees.
If/when City are cleared, the other 19 clubs may be picking up a tab in excess of £60m, which is pretty unfair on clubs like Palace, Brighton. Brentford etc who played no part in bringing this on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
City fan concerned about what is unfair for other clubs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Liverpool fan not concerned about what is unfair for other clubs
Be interesting to see Pep pick his strangeways eleven
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 1 hour, 38 minutes ago
The whole case is riddled with 'Super Injuctions' according to various rumours and the Prem has already spent over £10m in legal fees.
If/when City are cleared, the other 19 clubs may be picking up a tab in excess of £60m, which is pretty unfair on clubs like Palace, Brighton. Brentford etc who played no part in bringing this on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Boris "the sportswashed" Gibson
Pep must be locked up.
His crimes against football cannot continue. We want our game back.
Let him try his tippy tappy nonsense in the prison showers.
City pressed the Pannick button
Never had too much of a problem with City tbh, but watching them try and sue the Prem along with their low rent threats about not being able to fund the women’s team and local community projects if not allowed to spend what they want broke the camels back.
Disgusting club if we’re honest.
comment by Robbing Hoody - keepy up arbiter. Don’t ... (U6374)
posted 2 minutes ago
Never had too much of a problem with City tbh, but watching them try and sue the Prem along with their low rent threats about not being able to fund the women’s team and local community projects if not allowed to spend what they want broke the camels back.
Disgusting club if we’re honest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Any links to those threats?
The onus is on the Premier League to prove those charges beyond reasonable doubt. I have no idea how it will go but if our Chairman says that he has irrefutable evidence then that's good enough for me for now.
I fully expect us to have "non cooperation" charges stick. After all, why wouldn't we oppose when our own legal advice says that we don't have to divulge sensitive business information that is irrelevant to the case?
If we are indeed found to have been in breach and the main charges stick, then major and global auditing organisations will be caught in the fallout, as well as notable individuals, as the charges are tantamount to fraud. That in itself would be spectacular.
I'm glad that it will start on Monday. At the very least, it will bring a close to the groundhog day articles and clickbait news cycles.
Let's see if we can make more h115tory and make it 5 in a row this season. Wish us luck, lads!
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - keepy up arbiter. Don’t ... (U6374)
posted 2 minutes ago
Never had too much of a problem with City tbh, but watching them try and sue the Prem along with their low rent threats about not being able to fund the women’s team and local community projects if not allowed to spend what they want broke the camels back.
Disgusting club if we’re honest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Any links to those threats?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure
It's in both the NY Times and the Athletic.
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5542803/2024/06/06/manchester-city-legal-challenge-premier-league/
"“City argue that the present rules will limit their ability to buy the best players, and force them to charge fans more for tickets,” the article in The Times reads. “They say they may also have to cut spending on youth development, women’s football, and community programmes.”
Scvm club.
Boris always cites ADUG's regeneration of East Manchester as an example of the good they've done in the city. I've always thought this is a.bit niave at best.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/manchester-city-council-abu-dhabi-sheikh-mansour-b2128273.html
They supposedly hold the leaseholds for the land, off shore profits paying no tax and there's the usual lack of affodable housing that goes with gentrification of areas.
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 17 minutes ago
Boris always cites ADUG's regeneration of East Manchester as an example of the good they've done in the city. I've always thought this is a.bit niave at best.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/manchester-city-council-abu-dhabi-sheikh-mansour-b2128273.html
They supposedly hold the leaseholds for the land, off shore profits paying no tax and there's the usual lack of affodable housing that goes with gentrification of areas.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They gentrified the club as well
comment by Robbing Hoody - keepy up arbiter. Don’t ... (U6374)
posted 29 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - keepy up arbiter. Don’t ... (U6374)
posted 2 minutes ago
Never had too much of a problem with City tbh, but watching them try and sue the Prem along with their low rent threats about not being able to fund the women’s team and local community projects if not allowed to spend what they want broke the camels back.
Disgusting club if we’re honest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Any links to those threats?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure
It's in both the NY Times and the Athletic.
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5542803/2024/06/06/manchester-city-legal-challenge-premier-league/
"“City argue that the present rules will limit their ability to buy the best players, and force them to charge fans more for tickets,” the article in The Times reads. “They say they may also have to cut spending on youth development, women’s football, and community programmes.”
Scvm club.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
City in The Community is the charity linked to the club and has been financially independent since it’s inception 40 years ago so I don’t know where they got that bollox from
I’d be genuinely interested to read any links you may have that aren’t behind a paywall
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - keepy up arbiter. Don’t ... (U6374)
posted 29 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - keepy up arbiter. Don’t ... (U6374)
posted 2 minutes ago
Never had too much of a problem with City tbh, but watching them try and sue the Prem along with their low rent threats about not being able to fund the women’s team and local community projects if not allowed to spend what they want broke the camels back.
Disgusting club if we’re honest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Any links to those threats?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure
It's in both the NY Times and the Athletic.
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5542803/2024/06/06/manchester-city-legal-challenge-premier-league/
"“City argue that the present rules will limit their ability to buy the best players, and force them to charge fans more for tickets,” the article in The Times reads. “They say they may also have to cut spending on youth development, women’s football, and community programmes.”
Scvm club.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
City in The Community is the charity linked to the club and has been financially independent since it’s inception 40 years ago so I don’t know where they got that bollox from
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If it’s not true maybe City will sue them as well
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 4 hours, 37 minutes ago
The whole case is riddled with 'Super Injuctions' according to various rumours and the Prem has already spent over £10m in legal fees.
If/when City are cleared, the other 19 clubs may be picking up a tab in excess of £60m, which is pretty unfair on clubs like Palace, Brighton. Brentford etc who played no part in bringing this on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How could the other clubs pick up the tab in a case between City and the PL? What an absolutely ridiculous thing to say.
comment by mancWoohoo- maximus mardius cob-onius (U10676)
posted 1 hour, 47 minutes ago
The onus is on the Premier League to prove those charges beyond reasonable doubt.
======
No they don't tbh
If we win all our games this season, I hope the PL will award us an extra point to round it off.
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 1 hour, 36 minutes ago
I’d be genuinely interested to read any links you may have that aren’t behind a paywall
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So you'd believe what's written in the Sun online, for free, over the Athletic because you have to pay to read the Athletic more Boris logic.
It kinda implies you think the Athletic may be open to influence from those willing to pay for it...ironically exactly how states like Qatar behave with their unlimited resources.
comment by Robbing Hoody - keepy up arbiter. Don’t talk to me unless you can do ten (U6374)
posted 2 hours, 26 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - keepy up arbiter. Don’t ... (U6374)
posted 2 minutes ago
Never had too much of a problem with City tbh, but watching them try and sue the Prem along with their low rent threats about not being able to fund the women’s team and local community projects if not allowed to spend what they want broke the camels back.
Disgusting club if we’re honest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Any links to those threats?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure
It's in both the NY Times and the Athletic.
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5542803/2024/06/06/manchester-city-legal-challenge-premier-league/
"“City argue that the present rules will limit their ability to buy the best players, and force them to charge fans more for tickets,” the article in The Times reads. “They say they may also have to cut spending on youth development, women’s football, and community programmes.”
Scvm club.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They wonet stop payin players 2 saralies
Sign in if you want to comment
City...and the charges!
Page 1 of 2
posted on 13/9/24
nobody pay 10k/nr lawyer ifthey r knot gillty
posted on 13/9/24
How much are the Prem paying their lawyer?
posted on 13/9/24
comment by #4zA (U22472)
posted 5 hours, 27 minutes ago
nobody pay 10k/nr lawyer ifthey r knot gillty
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Eggs Act Leigh
posted on 13/9/24
The whole case is riddled with 'Super Injuctions' according to various rumours and the Prem has already spent over £10m in legal fees.
If/when City are cleared, the other 19 clubs may be picking up a tab in excess of £60m, which is pretty unfair on clubs like Palace, Brighton. Brentford etc who played no part in bringing this on.
posted on 13/9/24
comment by #4zA (U22472)
posted 6 hours, 29 minutes ago
nobody pay 10k/nr lawyer ifthey r knot gillty
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You pay what it takes to prove your innocence knowing that the losing side has to pick up the bill.
posted on 13/9/24
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 15 minutes ago
The whole case is riddled with 'Super Injuctions' according to various rumours and the Prem has already spent over £10m in legal fees.
If/when City are cleared, the other 19 clubs may be picking up a tab in excess of £60m, which is pretty unfair on clubs like Palace, Brighton. Brentford etc who played no part in bringing this on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
City fan concerned about what is unfair for other clubs
posted on 13/9/24
comment by Half a Big Bite - Darwin's it! (U7237)
posted 5 seconds ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 15 minutes ago
The whole case is riddled with 'Super Injuctions' according to various rumours and the Prem has already spent over £10m in legal fees.
If/when City are cleared, the other 19 clubs may be picking up a tab in excess of £60m, which is pretty unfair on clubs like Palace, Brighton. Brentford etc who played no part in bringing this on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
City fan concerned about what is unfair for other clubs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Liverpool fan not concerned about what is unfair for other clubs
posted on 13/9/24
Be interesting to see Pep pick his strangeways eleven
posted on 13/9/24
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 1 hour, 38 minutes ago
The whole case is riddled with 'Super Injuctions' according to various rumours and the Prem has already spent over £10m in legal fees.
If/when City are cleared, the other 19 clubs may be picking up a tab in excess of £60m, which is pretty unfair on clubs like Palace, Brighton. Brentford etc who played no part in bringing this on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Boris "the sportswashed" Gibson
posted on 13/9/24
Pep must be locked up.
His crimes against football cannot continue. We want our game back.
Let him try his tippy tappy nonsense in the prison showers.
posted on 13/9/24
City pressed the Pannick button
posted on 13/9/24
Never had too much of a problem with City tbh, but watching them try and sue the Prem along with their low rent threats about not being able to fund the women’s team and local community projects if not allowed to spend what they want broke the camels back.
Disgusting club if we’re honest.
posted on 13/9/24
comment by Robbing Hoody - keepy up arbiter. Don’t ... (U6374)
posted 2 minutes ago
Never had too much of a problem with City tbh, but watching them try and sue the Prem along with their low rent threats about not being able to fund the women’s team and local community projects if not allowed to spend what they want broke the camels back.
Disgusting club if we’re honest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Any links to those threats?
posted on 13/9/24
The onus is on the Premier League to prove those charges beyond reasonable doubt. I have no idea how it will go but if our Chairman says that he has irrefutable evidence then that's good enough for me for now.
I fully expect us to have "non cooperation" charges stick. After all, why wouldn't we oppose when our own legal advice says that we don't have to divulge sensitive business information that is irrelevant to the case?
If we are indeed found to have been in breach and the main charges stick, then major and global auditing organisations will be caught in the fallout, as well as notable individuals, as the charges are tantamount to fraud. That in itself would be spectacular.
I'm glad that it will start on Monday. At the very least, it will bring a close to the groundhog day articles and clickbait news cycles.
Let's see if we can make more h115tory and make it 5 in a row this season. Wish us luck, lads!
posted on 13/9/24
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - keepy up arbiter. Don’t ... (U6374)
posted 2 minutes ago
Never had too much of a problem with City tbh, but watching them try and sue the Prem along with their low rent threats about not being able to fund the women’s team and local community projects if not allowed to spend what they want broke the camels back.
Disgusting club if we’re honest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Any links to those threats?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure
It's in both the NY Times and the Athletic.
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5542803/2024/06/06/manchester-city-legal-challenge-premier-league/
"“City argue that the present rules will limit their ability to buy the best players, and force them to charge fans more for tickets,” the article in The Times reads. “They say they may also have to cut spending on youth development, women’s football, and community programmes.”
Scvm club.
posted on 13/9/24
Boris always cites ADUG's regeneration of East Manchester as an example of the good they've done in the city. I've always thought this is a.bit niave at best.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/manchester-city-council-abu-dhabi-sheikh-mansour-b2128273.html
They supposedly hold the leaseholds for the land, off shore profits paying no tax and there's the usual lack of affodable housing that goes with gentrification of areas.
posted on 13/9/24
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 17 minutes ago
Boris always cites ADUG's regeneration of East Manchester as an example of the good they've done in the city. I've always thought this is a.bit niave at best.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/manchester-city-council-abu-dhabi-sheikh-mansour-b2128273.html
They supposedly hold the leaseholds for the land, off shore profits paying no tax and there's the usual lack of affodable housing that goes with gentrification of areas.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They gentrified the club as well
posted on 13/9/24
comment by Robbing Hoody - keepy up arbiter. Don’t ... (U6374)
posted 29 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - keepy up arbiter. Don’t ... (U6374)
posted 2 minutes ago
Never had too much of a problem with City tbh, but watching them try and sue the Prem along with their low rent threats about not being able to fund the women’s team and local community projects if not allowed to spend what they want broke the camels back.
Disgusting club if we’re honest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Any links to those threats?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure
It's in both the NY Times and the Athletic.
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5542803/2024/06/06/manchester-city-legal-challenge-premier-league/
"“City argue that the present rules will limit their ability to buy the best players, and force them to charge fans more for tickets,” the article in The Times reads. “They say they may also have to cut spending on youth development, women’s football, and community programmes.”
Scvm club.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
City in The Community is the charity linked to the club and has been financially independent since it’s inception 40 years ago so I don’t know where they got that bollox from
posted on 13/9/24
I’d be genuinely interested to read any links you may have that aren’t behind a paywall
posted on 13/9/24
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - keepy up arbiter. Don’t ... (U6374)
posted 29 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - keepy up arbiter. Don’t ... (U6374)
posted 2 minutes ago
Never had too much of a problem with City tbh, but watching them try and sue the Prem along with their low rent threats about not being able to fund the women’s team and local community projects if not allowed to spend what they want broke the camels back.
Disgusting club if we’re honest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Any links to those threats?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure
It's in both the NY Times and the Athletic.
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5542803/2024/06/06/manchester-city-legal-challenge-premier-league/
"“City argue that the present rules will limit their ability to buy the best players, and force them to charge fans more for tickets,” the article in The Times reads. “They say they may also have to cut spending on youth development, women’s football, and community programmes.”
Scvm club.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
City in The Community is the charity linked to the club and has been financially independent since it’s inception 40 years ago so I don’t know where they got that bollox from
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If it’s not true maybe City will sue them as well
posted on 13/9/24
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 4 hours, 37 minutes ago
The whole case is riddled with 'Super Injuctions' according to various rumours and the Prem has already spent over £10m in legal fees.
If/when City are cleared, the other 19 clubs may be picking up a tab in excess of £60m, which is pretty unfair on clubs like Palace, Brighton. Brentford etc who played no part in bringing this on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How could the other clubs pick up the tab in a case between City and the PL? What an absolutely ridiculous thing to say.
posted on 13/9/24
comment by mancWoohoo- maximus mardius cob-onius (U10676)
posted 1 hour, 47 minutes ago
The onus is on the Premier League to prove those charges beyond reasonable doubt.
======
No they don't tbh
posted on 13/9/24
If we win all our games this season, I hope the PL will award us an extra point to round it off.
posted on 13/9/24
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 1 hour, 36 minutes ago
I’d be genuinely interested to read any links you may have that aren’t behind a paywall
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So you'd believe what's written in the Sun online, for free, over the Athletic because you have to pay to read the Athletic more Boris logic.
It kinda implies you think the Athletic may be open to influence from those willing to pay for it...ironically exactly how states like Qatar behave with their unlimited resources.
posted on 13/9/24
comment by Robbing Hoody - keepy up arbiter. Don’t talk to me unless you can do ten (U6374)
posted 2 hours, 26 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - keepy up arbiter. Don’t ... (U6374)
posted 2 minutes ago
Never had too much of a problem with City tbh, but watching them try and sue the Prem along with their low rent threats about not being able to fund the women’s team and local community projects if not allowed to spend what they want broke the camels back.
Disgusting club if we’re honest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Any links to those threats?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure
It's in both the NY Times and the Athletic.
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5542803/2024/06/06/manchester-city-legal-challenge-premier-league/
"“City argue that the present rules will limit their ability to buy the best players, and force them to charge fans more for tickets,” the article in The Times reads. “They say they may also have to cut spending on youth development, women’s football, and community programmes.”
Scvm club.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They wonet stop payin players 2 saralies
Page 1 of 2