comment by Paulpowersleftfoot (U1037)
posted 1 hour ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by T-BAD (U11806)
posted 8 hours, 53 minutes ago
Surely without sufficient evidence though they still have an obligation to try and hold people to account though? Even in terms of people being cleared it still needs to go through a certain process for that to be able to happen.

I won't lie, I obviously don't know the ins and outs of the legal system and have a very rudimentary level of understanding
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Exactly right.

Where the PL are not constrained by the statute of limitations and will also have a lower burden of proof - Balance of probabilities vs Beyond a reasonable doubt, they HAVE to investigate this properly and charge the club, especially with the threat of Independent Regulator hanging over the PL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The independent regulator that City are in favour of
----------------------------------------------------------------------

We have seen with City challenging rules that their interest lies in opening up their ability to tap into the vast wealth of their backers and associated parties.

They would love it to become and more open free market where they can make the wealth of their backers and associated parties count....that will be great for them, but not for the league.

Many of the PL rules are set up for the good of the PL as a competition, for a greater good. City have no interest in the greater good and an Independent regulator is far more likely to erode the sort of 'private club' rules that the PL has.

comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 hour, 19 minutes ago
comment by T-BAD (U11806)
posted 8 hours, 53 minutes ago
Surely without sufficient evidence though they still have an obligation to try and hold people to account though? Even in terms of people being cleared it still needs to go through a certain process for that to be able to happen.

I won't lie, I obviously don't know the ins and outs of the legal system and have a very rudimentary level of understanding
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Exactly right.

Where the PL are not constrained by the statute of limitations and will also have a lower burden of proof - Balance of probabilities vs Beyond a reasonable doubt, they HAVE to investigate this properly and charge the club, especially with the threat of Independent Regulator hanging over the PL
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The PL are constrained by the statute of limitations. It’s just that by its nature if they find city guilty then deliberate concealment would apply so the limitations only started upon discovery.

comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 hour, 19 minutes ago
comment by T-BAD (U11806)
posted 8 hours, 53 minutes ago
Surely without sufficient evidence though they still have an obligation to try and hold people to account though? Even in terms of people being cleared it still needs to go through a certain process for that to be able to happen.

I won't lie, I obviously don't know the ins and outs of the legal system and have a very rudimentary level of understanding
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Exactly right.

Where the PL are not constrained by the statute of limitations and will also have a lower burden of proof - Balance of probabilities vs Beyond a reasonable doubt, they HAVE to investigate this properly and charge the club, especially with the threat of Independent Regulator hanging over the PL
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The PL are constrained by the statute of limitations. It’s just that by its nature if they find city guilty then deliberate concealment would apply so the limitations only started upon discovery.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes indeed. Theirs is governed by English law, different from the UEFA's own rule book in their case, and the PL will have to prove a number of factors if they wish to be successful with charges within an extended limitation period.

comment by T-BAD (U11806)
posted 11 hours, 21 minutes ago
Surely without sufficient evidence though they still have an obligation to try and hold people to account though?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

It depends where your priorities lie: your conviction success percentage, or putting on a show to stave off the threat of having an independent regulator taking over.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cj6kg09ee84o

You lost again. 😂

SE85 celebrating a vote going through.

#now13th

comment by mancWoohoo- maximus mardius cob-onius (U10676)
posted 14 minutes ago
SE85 celebrating a vote going through.

#now13th
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Still 20

Still 13

Still 3

All more than Abu Dhabi cheaters. 👍

You once mocked Historypool.

Now look at you.

comment by mancWoohoo- maximus mardius cob-onius (U10676)
posted 1 minute ago
You once mocked Historypool.

Now look at you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

At least they achieved theirs off their own back. You're a charity case and it's hilarious how you can't see it. 😂

comment by Tyranny of the majority (SE85) (U21241)
posted 22 seconds ago
comment by mancWoohoo- maximus mardius cob-onius (U10676)
posted 1 minute ago
You once mocked Historypool.

Now look at you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

At least they achieved theirs off their own back. You're a charity case and it's hilarious how you can't see it. 😂
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What's more hilarious is that you actually think that.

comment by mancWoohoo- maximus mardius cob-onius (U10676)
posted 6 minutes ago
You once mocked Historypool.

Now look at you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

comment by Tyranny of the majority (SE85) (U21241)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by mancWoohoo- maximus mardius cob-onius (U10676)
posted 1 minute ago
You once mocked Historypool.

Now look at you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

At least they achieved theirs off their own back. You're a charity case and it's hilarious how you can't see it. 😂
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Moores Family may have had a hand in that but as they weren't Arab, it doesn't count.

comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Tyranny of the majority (SE85) (U21241)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by mancWoohoo- maximus mardius cob-onius (U10676)
posted 1 minute ago
You once mocked Historypool.

Now look at you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

At least they achieved theirs off their own back. You're a charity case and it's hilarious how you can't see it. 😂
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Moores Family may have had a hand in that but as they weren't Arab, it doesn't count.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Definitely same thing as being owned by a country with an owner worth billions if not more as we don't really know their true wealth.

You're a Tinpot charity club that needed hand outs to join the big boys. And even then had to cheat despite that advantage. 😂

"... owned by a country..."

🤣

comment by mancWoohoo- maximus mardius cob-onius (U10676)
posted 2 minutes ago
"... owned by a country..."

🤣
----------------------------------------------------------------------
City fans still deny this

Liverpool are owned by America

I doubt City will be that disappointed by how the vote went.

comment by mancWoohoo- maximus mardius cob-onius (U10676)
posted 34 minutes ago
"... owned by a country..."

🤣
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This always a ludicrous thing to use, given we are owned by a greedy, chemical polluting company headed by a massive waaanker and trump supporting caaants. Sure no one wants to be owned by some Middle East country with a questionable human rights record, but we really aren’t on any high ground, none if the top clubs will be either. They’re all owned by caants of some variety.

comment by Baz tard - Ineos your face (U19119)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by mancWoohoo- maximus mardius cob-onius (U10676)
posted 34 minutes ago
"... owned by a country..."

🤣
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This always a ludicrous thing to use, given we are owned by a greedy, chemical polluting company headed by a massive waaanker and trump supporting caaants. Sure no one wants to be owned by some Middle East country with a questionable human rights record, but we really aren’t on any high ground, none if the top clubs will be either. They’re all owned by caants of some variety.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bet you feel better now you vented that Baz

comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 50 minutes ago
comment by mancWoohoo- maximus mardius cob-onius (U10676)
posted 2 minutes ago
"... owned by a country..."

🤣
----------------------------------------------------------------------
City fans still deny this
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SE85's knowledge of football is limited only to trophy counts.

From what I have seen, you are a decent poster. Where can I be educated on City is owned by a country by facts rather than the usual tenuous 6 degree of separation conspiracies?

Honest request.

comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 23 minutes ago
I doubt City will be that disappointed by how the vote went.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed. Wouldn't it funny if all of this was to finesse the PL to finally close the door now that we got the shareholder loans out in the open.

comment by mancWoohoo- maximus mardius cob-onius (U10676)
posted 17 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 50 minutes ago
comment by mancWoohoo- maximus mardius cob-onius (U10676)
posted 2 minutes ago
"... owned by a country..."

🤣
----------------------------------------------------------------------
City fans still deny this
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SE85's knowledge of football is limited only to trophy counts.

From what I have seen, you are a decent poster. Where can I be educated on City is owned by a country by facts rather than the usual tenuous 6 degree of separation conspiracies?

Honest request.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Mansour is the owner of the Abu Dhabi United Group (ADUG), an investment company for the Abu Dhabi royal family,[8] that acquired Manchester City in September 2008. The football club, which is operated by Khaldoon Al Mubarak and the CFG"

"Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan (Arabic: منصور بن زايد بن سلطان آل نهيان; born 20 November 1970), often referred to as Sheikh Mansour,[1][2][3] is an Emirati royal and politician who is the current vice president and deputy prime minister of the United Arab Emirates, as well as the minister of presidential court and member of the ruling family of Abu Dhabi. He is the brother of the current president of the UAE, Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, and is married to Sheikha Manal bint Mohammed Al Maktoum, daughter of Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, the ruler of Dubai. A billionaire, he holds stakes in a variety of football clubs through City Football Group, including current Premier League winners Manchester City F.C."

This is common enough knowledge to even be on Wiki and be accurate.

Come on now at least be honest about it. Even the Saudi's are beating you on that front.

That wiki is indeed accurate and I have no qualms about it.

"A billionaire, he holds stakes ..... including... Manchester City."

The fact that he is an Emirati Royal is circumstantial evidence and not direct evidence. May I understand where I can find that the Country of UAE owns Manchester City?

He owns Arabia n their4 u r own bye Arabia

comment by mancWoohoo- maximus mardius cob-onius (U10676)
posted 9 minutes ago
That wiki is indeed accurate and I have no qualms about it.

"A billionaire, he holds stakes ..... including... Manchester City."

The fact that he is an Emirati Royal is circumstantial evidence and not direct evidence. May I understand where I can find that the Country of UAE owns Manchester City?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Mansour is the owner of the Abu Dhabi United Group (ADUG), an investment company for the Abu Dhabi royal family,[8] that acquired Manchester City in September 2008. The football club, which is operated by Khaldoon Al Mubarak and the CFG""

ADUG an investment company for the Abu Dhabi Royal family.

No wonder City's defence against the charges aren't taken seriously if the clubs fans can't even admit who owns the club.