PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

g180aj said:
Technically they didn’t hack us, we didn’t remove the logins of staff who had left, they continued to use there logins while working for Liverpool.

A little sloppy on our behalf.
Click to expand...
Wrong A hack amounts to illegal access to a computer system I’ve explained this already but, to summarise It falls under the computer misuse act 1990 Login details belong to the enterprise the T&C of use will forbid any use following termination of employment There is a prison sentence associated with it

Computer Misuse Act 1990

An Act to make provision for securing computer material against unauthorised access or modification; and for connected purposes.
www.legislation.gov.uk www.legislation.gov.uk
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
No. They used the login of an existing employee.

But it's irrelevant because (as I understand it) once that settlement is agreed and signed, there's no further civil or criminal recourse unless there's a specific provision in the settlement agreement.
Click to expand...
If City have pushed this issue into the public domain then it is probably a tactic to highlight the PL saying it was too long ago thus the same will apply to the City case unless they can prove serious offences such as fraud
 
BobKowalski said:
Yep. That’s my recollection as well. Mancini was employed or working as a consultant. I assumed at the time it was more akin to paying him a retainer or having first option on his services should the City job come up.
Click to expand...

Don’t think he was given he only had first contact with either of them two weeks before he took the job with us. It’s a moot point anyway though.
 
Gordyola said:
If City have pushed this issue into the public domain then it is probably a tactic to highlight the PL saying it was too long ago thus the same will apply to the City case unless they can prove serious offences such as fraud
Click to expand...


It was the FA rather than the PL that investigated the Liverpool one (I’m still not sure why tbh!)
 
Citizen of Legoland said:
It sounds more like someone has been sharing a key for their house in order for others to take stuff out (with permission) but has then assumed the same people wouldn’t do the same when their permission was revoked. The question being, were the people told their permission was revoked?
Click to expand...
Leaving a company means your permission to access data or systems is revoked whether the leaver is aware or not, City were sloppy on account admin but it is still a criminal offence If you have a key to enter premises is doesn’t mean you have permission
 
BobKowalski said:
Hardly. It depends on the settlement. Full payoff and no job as a manager for six months (or whatever) or partial payoff and no work restriction. It’s a contract between two parties that they agree to and abide by. Mancini had a contract with Inter with three years left when he was sacked so there would have been a lot of intense discussions to settle that one!
Click to expand...

No.

Either you’re not fired, carry on as an employee on gardening leave on full salary.

Or you receive a pay off (whatever the amount) and your employment is terminated.


No employer can make you sign up to a period of unemployment. Even non-compete clauses are incredibly hard to enforce.
 
ayrshire_blue said:
Except person's at home are not duty bound to protect their property by locking doors/windows etc - there is no law in place for homeowners to do so. There is legislation in place for businesses with reference to protection of data and the use of computer systems. The two situations are worlds apart. That being said, it's still cheating by Liverpool FC.
Click to expand...
It’s is also the responsibility of an individual under GDPR to abide by the legislation Knowing accessing the data with true knowledge that you are no longer entitled to is an offence
 
Fuzzy80 said:
It’s definitely the blue shirts v the reds

City v United
Chelsea v Arsenal
Everton v Liverpool

Everton fans are livid about how corrupt it is and hopefully they see it rather then it’s ok if City/ Chelsea get punished.

Need the narrative to change, why is what Everton done so wrong, what is wrong with investment.

The best and most even competition in the world would be all clubs having the same budget, obviously unlikely to happen.

Having Saudi or someone blowing the competition out of the window and paying £1 million a week to the 23 best footballers would not be great.

But there is a middle ground where owner investment is allowed up to the turnover of other clubs as long as it is investment and not debt.

That would be great and far better then FFP.

Run the article how much did Everton spend compared to United, A LOT less and now they have 10 points deducted and there was no financial risk to them.

Let’s hope the ones together stay together to fight this as already the media are trying the divide and conquer.
Click to expand...
For over a hundred years there was no financial regulation how many clubs went bust? Since the introduction of financial regulation more clubs have gone bust, not saying it is why but what is clear is it doesn’t work
Of course it was introduced to hamstrung the likes of City If we have done a few dodgy things then so what the Sky 4 were just as dodgy getting the UCL introduced to ensure they got massive income that the others couldn’t get or get into the cartel Now their jealousy and lothering of City and their Arab owners is going to wreck the golden goose lf City are found guilty and servly punished it will be the end as I’m sure City will release a maelstrom of information to wreck the PL after all they won’t be part of it anymore It’s the PL as it is today with City or not at all
 
meltonblue said:
Right and Liverpool were liable for that. There is also a requirement on the data owners to have appropriate measures in place to ensure that data is secure, of which we would be liable. Say if that data had been leaked, the people who’s info was on that database would have had a case against us.
Click to expand...
We didn’t own the database apparently but would be liable for account management although the database owners might actually do the mechanics we may have notified them that the account should be closed and they hadn’t got around to it This doesn’t excuse the perpetrator of the hack
 
Gordyola said:
We didn’t own the database apparently but would be liable for account management although the database owners might actually do the mechanics we may have notified them that the account should be closed and they hadn’t got around to it This doesn’t excuse the perpetrator of the hack
Click to expand...

It wasn’t an account that should have been closed as they were using an existing employees logon to do it.

We did own the database, we didn’t host it though.
 
meltonblue said:
It wasn’t an account that should have been closed as they were using an existing employees logon to do it.

We did own the database, we didn’t host it though.
Click to expand...
Well that makes the offence worse
I’ve heard both scenarios though I’m not sure if anyone knows for certain
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top