PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[bitterblue78]

So theres no chance of a points deduction this season

 

[kaz7]

Lord pannick is also an arsenal fan, maybe we should consider getting a new lawyer as well.

Are you on stupid pills ?

 

[Bluemoonadam]

Are you on stupid pills ?

I'm just stating our lawyer is an arsenal fan nothing stupid about it because its true.

 

[moomba]

If we are so confident of getting the charges over turned it shouldn't matter what team he supports.

It doesn't. Absolutely no chance we're challenging him based on the team he supports.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

Have we actually come out and stated the ‘Arsenal fan’ bit or is that just the way the media have twisted it ?

I’d be more inclined to believe it may be because there’s a lack of a truly independent investigation. No independent prosecution. No independent judge to adjudicate, or something along those lines.

I am sure that, as usual, the issue has been misreported. The latest Times story reads as if it was leaked out by someone in the PL camp or by someone at LFC and MUFC who is being kept in the loop by Richard Masters. The leaker could even be someone at the EFL who was contacted by someone at the PL (not a surprise).
Remember that Martin Ziegler and the Times football team was also a recipient of information which leaked out of the UEFA investigation (as was Tariq Panja at the New York Times). The UEFA leak was twisted to suggest they were going to throw the book at City (but as it transpired UEFA had no evidence)
I agree that City have probably obected to the entire process which is totally unfair and does not represent natural justice. The PL, which has been leading a witchunt against us, is being allowed to appoint its own panel to adjudicate on the matter. That is ridiculous. The "Arsenal fan claim" must be a red herring.
If someone at the PL has leaked the story and briefed our commercial rivals (as happened with UEFA) then they have just scored a major own goal which will undermine their own case. I don't believe the timing (right after the Madrid victory) was an accident.

 

[SebastianBlue]

I'm just stating our lawyer is an arsenal fan nothing stupid about it because its true.

It is a nonsensical point in the context of the discussion.

 

[silvasdreamyfringe]

do we have any idea for the potential timeline for all of this?
Do you think it is likely if we are found non guilty of these charges we go after some of these knobs for defamation or libel?

 

[Bluemoonadam]

It is a nonsensical point in the context of the discussion.

Well surely going of our logic that supposedly we want a different barrister because he's an arsenal fan when our lawyer is one is stupid isn't it? I'd say its quite a relevant point of discussion to be had.

 

[chaddblue]

Well surely going of our logic that supposedly we want a different barrister because he's an arsenal fan when our lawyer is one is stupid isn't it?

I'm sure I read that the Arsenal barrister has an existing role within the PL organization, which is the reason we're objecting to his appointment, not because he's an Arsenal fan

 

[Nicholas van Whatsisface]

Well surely going of our logic that supposedly we want a different barrister because he's an arsenal fan when our lawyer is one is stupid isn't it? I'd say its quite a relevant point of discussion to be had.

The ‘Arsenal Fan’ line is simply an attempt to rubbish a series of challenges we’ve put to this case.

Rosen is actually a member at Arsenal, which is a little more than just being an average fan - and we’re questioning his impartiality as an active member of an organisation we know has historically played a central role in trying to get us removed from the League.

But this is just a small part of the picture, intended to demonstrate the entire case is a poorly constructed, unprofessional shambles.

The far more concerning challenge for the PL (which clearly none of the MSN are remotely interested in leading with) is the one around being charged against a set of rules that weren’t in place at the time of the alleged ‘infringements’ - which if supported, could lead to a number of the charges being dismissed out of hand.

But despite the implied pettiness from the MSN around our defence resting on the fact we’re not happy Rosen is an Arsenal fan, this is standard legal practice - to undermine the rigour and impartiality of a case (and those behind it), thereby supporting any subsequent arguments we make on the actual substance - whilst seeding the idea that the opposite side can’t be trusted.