PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Blue Mist]

Interesting, could this be our irrefutable evidence perhaps, a clean bill of health from HMRC.

Their investigation not being in the public domain because there is nothing about us to prosecute.

Would this clear us of any fraud related accusations, or would the pl refer to their own "rules" still, and if so,would that situation be legal.

Or let's reverse Clarkie them and say we are guilty. They will be so gobsmacked and confused they won't let us do it and instead, to really fuck us over, find us not guilty.

Dead easy this Internet expert lark.

 

[eastmanc]

They didn’t, not sure where that has come from.

LB on City xtra. He has just read the full report and he spoke about exactly that on his last podcast. He read all 90 odd pages of it.

 

[Xhavenjoe]

Or let's reverse Clarkie them and say we are guilty. They will be so gobsmacked and confused they won't let us do it and instead, to really fuck us over, find us not guilty.

I was watching "24 hours in Police Custody" and the accused kept saying " No comment"
Could we try something similar

 

[meltonblue]

LB on City xtra. He has just read the full report and he spoke about exactly that on his last podcast. He read all 90 odd pages of it.

Yeah I have more than a few times, they definitely didn’t say that. It’s not something they would, it wasn’t a defence we put forward for them to comment about.

All they said in the conclusion was what I said, they agreed there was a legitimate basis to prosecute and we also acknowledged it.

 

[cheekybids]

I wouldn’t call it spurious as such, Uefa, ourselves and CAS all agreed that the content of the emails if deemed admissible would mean we had a legitimate case to answer.

But the premier league knew the emails were doctored to present an out of context view & didn’t need to proceed.

The question is after reading the CAS findings why did they feel the need to proceed?

Edit: Mods can this reply & all others similar be moved to the other thread…

 

[Paladin]

I was watching "24 hours in Police Custody" and the accused kept saying " No comment"
Could we try something similar

I was on jury service back in the eighties and the defendant answered "No comment" to the first question from the prosecution. "You're not allowed to say that, you have to answer the questions truthfully", returned the judge.

 

[Phil1]

I was on jury service back in the eighties and the defendant answered "No comment" to the first question from the prosecution. "You're not allowed to say that, you have to answer the questions truthfully", returned the judge.

I’m pretty sure it’s only valid until the CPS bring the charges? I may be wrong but the idea of saying no comment is not to incriminate yourself and hope the police don’t have enough evidence to bring charges.

 

[eastmanc]

Yeah I have more than a few times, they definitely didn’t say that. It’s not something they would, it wasn’t a defence we put forward for them to comment about.

All they said in the conclusion was what I said, they agreed there was a legitimate basis to prosecute and we also acknowledged it.

No they didn't LB said that on page 78 the panel agreed that the allegations were ridiculous and dangerous and Martin, the guest, said that the panel basically agreed that there was a little bit of a witchhunt. Have a look at the podcast.

 

[meltonblue]

But the premier league knew the emails were doctored to present an out of context view & didn’t need to proceed.

The question is after reading the CAS findings why did they feel the need to proceed?

Edit: Mods can this reply & all others similar be moved to the other thread…

I’m assuming because of the emails that were leaked after the CAS judgment, otherwise I agree. That or they’ve got some other evidence we don’t know about.

Agree about moving all these comments.

 

[adelaideblue]

Excellent piece.

I think the Premier League have been put under enormous pressure by the Red Cartel and Spurs as they can't match our business model. I think the PL have rushed this and succumbed to the pressure from the clubs. They've gone for repetition and sheer volume of charges to try and exaggerate the effect. Hence I don't think their case is water tight. It is flimsy.

I also cannot see that the PL will go through with the flimsy charges that accuse the senior member of one of our biggest and best trading partners at £25 Billion per annum. Add into that the fact that they are one of our best friends in the Middle East would be strategically ridiculous. Finally, that this has been brought about by jealous rivals would be a massive gamble to take on the part of the PL.

can we keep comments like this to the other thread, this one pops up almost every second page and keep this thread to more fact based comments otherwise it will be 1000 posts in no time. people starting with .. im no lawyer, i assume, red cartel... keep to other one

 

[Gordyola]

You know if you were just mentally rich, and I mean incomprehensibly rich, could you as a private citizen sponsor city for £1bil to have your name on the front of the kit? Maybe a picture of your with a thumbs up or whatever?
Or would that be frowned upon by the paragons of virtue in charge?

Ed Sheeran shirt sponsor at Ipswich got his tour promo on front of shirt There’s no reason why you couldn’t be a shirt sponsor

 

[meltonblue]

No they didn't LB said that on page 78 the panel agreed that the allegations were ridiculous and dangerous and Martin, the guest, said that the panel basically agreed that there was a little bit of a witchhunt. Have a look at the podcast.

I listened to both of those for a bit, I don’t know what line they could be referring to and there’s nothing on that page about it - that page is about the request of information from Uefa to us.

That wouldn’t be the conclusion anyway though, that doesn’t come til later in the doc.

 

[Gordyola]

Haven't all 3 been selected already by the PL?

Recall one being an Arsenal fan?

The PL have a KC Murray Rosen as the chair of the judicial panel Known to be an Arsenal fan
He will appoint the IC probably not sit on it

Murray Rosen KC appointed by the Premier League Clubs as the first Chair of their new Judicial Panel

The Premier League has created a new Judicial Panel of 15 members, plus an Appeal Panel of 6 members, to adjudicate independently disciplinary cases referred to it by the Premier League Board and to resolve disputes between Clubs and Managers by way of arbitration. Murray Rosen KC has been...

www.4newsquare.com

 

[salfordbluetrue]

You have any links?

Edit: Not doubting you, but have never really followed that case.

No links, but it should not be hard to find under, US reducing state funding for internal flights, our owners were also running internal flights in the US, so there was a big outcry and investigation, into how much state funding.

 

[spinney]

No links, but it should not be hard to find under, US reducing state funding for internal flights, our owners were also running internal flights in the US, so there was a big outcry and investigation, into how much state funding.

Think it was called ' open skies ' enquiry

 

[LesBleuMiserable]

Don't call him Arnold, it's Trent.

Cry me a river…

 

[burning blue soul]

I don’t reckon AI is all that. I was thinking the other day, while out and about that I’d stop off for a bacon roll. When I got there, I saw they had some pasties, So I grabbed a couple for the next day’s lunch. AI might have got me the bacon roll, but I wouldn’t have thought it could have the afterthought to get a couple of pasties…

These AI Johnny's are clever. Give the lad half a day hanging about with you and it would have not only got you the pasties, but a vanilla slice as well, so you could finish strong with summat sweet.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Fixed for you

Strictly in the interests of accuracy

A lawyer calling accountants boring? Here is an example of the exciting life our most eminent KC:

LORD PANNICK: Can I come on to the fifth topic which is De Keyser and the other case law.
LADY HALE: Have I been mispronouncing that case all my adult life?
LORD PANNICK: Would your Ladyship like to tell me the correct --
LADY HALE: De Keyser.
LORD PANNICK: I will call it De Keyser.
LADY HALE: I may be wrong, I am often wrong.
LORD PANNICK: You say De Keyser, I say De Keyser.
LORD CLARKE: Down here we think it is De Keyser.
THE PRESIDENT: We can each stick to our own because the transcript will not give away what we have called it.
LORD PANNICK: It is my fifth topic, whatever it is called

 

[Chris in London]

A lawyer calling accountants boring? Here is an example of the exciting life our most eminent KC:

LORD PANNICK: Can I come on to the fifth topic which is De Keyser and the other case law.
LADY HALE: Have I been mispronouncing that case all my adult life?
LORD PANNICK: Would your Ladyship like to tell me the correct --
LADY HALE: De Keyser.
LORD PANNICK: I will call it De Keyser.
LADY HALE: I may be wrong, I am often wrong.
LORD PANNICK: You say De Keyser, I say De Keyser.
LORD CLARKE: Down here we think it is De Keyser.
THE PRESIDENT: We can each stick to our own because the transcript will not give away what we have called it.
LORD PANNICK: It is my fifth topic, whatever it is called

A fascinating demonstration of the passive/aggressive use of language, in which Lady Hale uses an entirely roundabout method of accusing Lord Pannick of mispronouncing the name of the extremely well-known case Attorney General v De Keyser's Royal Hotel.

Note Lord Pannick's use of humour ('you say tomato') to avoid the unenviable choice between an arid confrontation with the tribunal he was keen to avoid annoying and an embarrassing climb-down.

Top, top advocacy.

Watch and learn, young man, watch and learn.

 

[halfcenturyup]

A fascinating demonstration of the passive/aggressive use of language, in which Lady Hale uses an entirely roundabout method of accusing Lord Pannick of mispronouncing the name of the extremely well-known case Attorney General v De Keyser's Royal Hotel.

Note Lord Pannick's use of humour ('you say tomato') to avoid the unenviable choice between an arid confrontation with the tribunal he was keen to avoid annoying and an embarrassing climb-down.

Top, top advocacy.

Watch and learn, young man, watch and learn.

Zzzzz ...... Oh, I'm sorry.

Thanks for proving my point. :)