6 + 2 Point Deductions

[kenada_blue]

Yet UEFA did, but the majority were disregarded as they were time-barred, bcos the five-year statute of limitations had passed.

Btw this Stefan, is a City stooge (former employee and a supporter). Funny, how he thinks everyone else is getting punished except his own club

Yeah, he was rolled out just after we got a points deduction now bathes in the sunlight of "FFP expert" on Talkshote.

As for the charges and UEFA...there's no smoke and all that. But it's the idea they dont have the concrete proof Cities lawyers wont go to town on.

But it's 115 charges. They cant dodge all of them. Even 1 tarnishes their reputation.

 

[MisterJ]

i think if it’s anything above 3 we will appeal

I was thinking more if we could go back to the original points deduction and appeal again to bring it down from 6 in light of the Forest decision

 

[MisterJ]

Also, I see the regulator is back on the agenda; bill in front of parliament

 

[kiss the crest]

One thing for certain in all of this, it gives Luton a massive shot in the arm and when we play them at their place it will be hostile and they will be well up for it, just hope our clowns are also

 

[matty1878]

I would appeal the results of our last appeal, appeal our next hearing before the verdict and appeal Forests decision. Better safe than sorry.

can we?

 

[jonnyboy316]

I have predicted 4 but there are some well qualified SME’s predicting a lesser charge. Anything less than Forest is a decent result

 

[matty1878]

I was thinking more if we could go back to the original points deduction and appeal again to bring it down from 6 in light of the Forest decision

can/and would of we by now?

 

[matty1878]

I have predicted 4 but there are some well qualified SME’s predicting a lesser charge. Anything less than Forest is a decent result

no mate 0 would be

it’s a farce

 

[Blue peter]

can we?

No I was just joking…the only thing we can appeal is our next hearing decision if it is unsatisfactory.

 

[mikel_88]

can/and would of we by now?

All depends if they accept some of it has already been covered by the first charge. Honestly i am still shocked at the forest charge just cant get my head around it, just have a horrible feeling these clowns try get us with another 6. Would expect the club to be looking at every point forest got back in there charge, we need to be on the attack,

 

[WestStandLower]

Yeah, he was rolled out just after we got a points deduction now bathes in the sunlight of "FFP expert" on Talkshote.

As for the charges and UEFA...there's no smoke and all that. But it's the idea they dont have the concrete proof Cities lawyers wont go to town on.

But it's 115 charges. They cant dodge all of them. Even 1 tarnishes their reputation.

He got schooled the other day around impairment on Blue Cos ( Chelsea’s current holding Company) particularly around asset acquisition

To be fair to him based on what is in the public domain he is right that the charges around Sponsorship will be difficult for the PL to prove but we have absolutely no idea what the PL investigators have uncovered all we know is that City wouldn’t submit information and the PL took City to arbitration but rather than accepting the competence of the arbitration panel City took it to High Court and we’re firmly put in their place did that lead to full disclosure or did they keep withholding?

When UEFA charged them City likewise refused to submit full information particularly a string of emails which UEFA were said to be so confident of their case they didn’t keep pursuing. That was an error because the court wouldn’t take any inference from them withholding whereas the PL panel aren’t governed by Swiss but English Law . You can bet your bottom dollar at that the PL will want to see everything that UEFa couldn’t get their hands on

You might have read that under UEFA statutes there is limitation in effect CAS said some charges were time barred . As we know the PL don’t have such restrictions but in English law there is still a Limitation in terms of how far back you can go to pursue a matter ( not appropriate to Criminal Law) The “expert” tells everyone that some of the older charges can’t be pursued because of limitation but that is waived in cases of fraud, concealment or mistake. Based on everything I have read concealment is exactly what the PL are suggesting. If that’s right then limitation is not it seems appropriate .

There are some areas where City are in trouble one around payments to players and payments to ex managers . Prove either or both of these and the whole deck of cards tumbles. Like us in this area but they really will have difficulty claiming co operation justifies mitigation.

Finally there are a significant number of charges for failing to co operate ( remember your first commission talking about being far from Frank) these probably in themself aren’t going to attract major sanctions but it’s the whole package of non co operation.

Please don’t think I suggesting that we Chelsea, won’t be charged at some point but again this City chap has absolutely no idea of what the issues are or how the PL view them.

 

[Yarrgh]

Corrupt.

 

[pfim]

Prediction:

Minimum charge is 3
Add 3 for amount of breach (whether that is 1 pound or 1 billion pounds)
Subtract 2 for our cooperation and expediency
Subtract 2 for "double jeopardy"
Add 2 as our beneficial owner is a Russian Oligarch
Add 4 as Moshiri is an accountant and we still can't get it right
Subtract 6 as that's what Matt Hughes reports it is
Add 2 as Sean Dyche is a ginger
Subtract 2 as Sean Dyche has a pub named after him

Punishment: 8 points deducted

 

[formerly manx toffee]

I have lost all interest in this conversation. Futile.

Gets some points won

 

[14_dollars]

Apologies for linking talksport but get a load of this charlatan called ‘Borson’ defending City.