Guilty of 114 charges

[whelk]

8 hours ago, Sarnia Cherie said:

That's my understanding too. Clutching at straws I suppose. Burnham, after his remarks about not wanting the owners to sell up has now had to say that Manchester City are not above the law. Somebody needs to tell him that politics and sport don't mix.

People are keen to piss themselves at anything these days. 

[egg]

9 hours ago, saintant said:

They used this argument and it was kicked out by the Independent Panel so not sure why they're going with it again. I thought that anything in the original case could not be repeated now and they have to come up with new evidence supporting their grounds in the appeal.

Incorrect. Appeals focus on whether the original panel/court/tribunal got it wrong, not new evidence. 

[Football Special]

On 30/09/2026 at 19:57, VectisSaint said:

He was the Mayor of Manchester, probably had a lot of contact with them and their supposedly massive investments in the City. 

Absolutely right. Man City/ owners have helped considerably to the regeneration of that area so its not surprising Burnham will have got on well with them in that role , they would have bought a lot of goodwill not that it will be much use for them now 

[Football Special]

16 hours ago, Ted Bates Statue said:

 

Feels like this might be what really does for the owners, if directors had been signing off accounts knowingly understating wages and therefore tax paid on them that should be an easy target for tax authorities to go after. 

Football finances do make me laugh though, I'd still rather City's owners investing their own cash than Man Utds debt based Glazer leveraged buy out that put the debt on the football club rather than the individuals making the purchase