PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

waspish said:
The irrefutable evidence is our accounts and they have to go through about 10 years of them
Click to expand...

Don't misunderstand me, I also think we will be cleared of the vast majority of the charges, I just think the idea that we have already sent documents that have put the whole thing to bed to be incredibly unlikely. We will prove our innocence at a trial.
 
Gaylord du Bois said:
The more you think about it, the more it feels like this, is coming down to the none co-operation issue. Because that's probably the only thing they can contest, if everything else is falling in, around them.
Click to expand...
If we’ve provided irrefutable evidence how can we have not co-operated?
 
MarsLlama said:
Surely that would have happened months ago, if we actually had the irrefutable evidence we claim.

If this turns out to be true I will be embarrassed as anyone and I will personally apologise to Prestige. But I'm not going to start writing my apology letter yet.
Click to expand...
You're missing the part where they (maybe) showing a lack of evidence. I'd imagine our evidence is irrelevant if they are not able to present any substantial evidence of their own.
 
Gaylord du Bois said:
The more you think about it, the more it feels like this, is coming down to the none co-operation issue. Because that's probably the only thing they can contest, if everything else is falling in, around them.
Click to expand...
Yes, that alone (if the case) has reputational damage value doesn’t it?
 
Stoned Rose said:
If we’ve provided irrefutable evidence how can we have not co-operated?
Click to expand...
To the IC not the premier league. The premier league might probably try and take the eufa/cas finding against us on that point.
Who knows?
After all we're all throwing balls of thought in the air. Hopefully they'll bounce in our favour.
 
MarsLlama said:
Don't misunderstand me, I also think we will be cleared of the vast majority of the charges, I just think the idea that we have already sent documents that have put the whole thing to bed to be incredibly unlikely. We will prove our innocence at a trial.
Click to expand...

They have to go through ALL the accounting documents there ain't few a4 papers they can read to find out if we innocent or guilty and why it is taking ages!
 
MarsLlama said:
Surely that would have happened months ago, if we actually had the irrefutable evidence we claim.

If this turns out to be true I will be embarrassed as anyone and I will personally apologise to Prestige. But I'm not going to start writing my apology letter yet.
Click to expand...
I can't imagine that the IC is sitting there waiting for the hearing to start before they look at the evidence presented by both sides. It's far more likely that the hearing will involve a summary of the evidence and clarification questions to witnesses from both parties.

I imagine they'll have been going through a pile of documents and the hearing will start when they've done that. Hence why they could well be in a position to question the strength of the PL's case in the face of the evidence we provided.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
I can't imagine that the IC is sitting there waiting for the hearing to start before they look at the evidence presented by both sides. It's far more likely that the hearing will involve a summary of the evidence and clarification questions to witnesses from both parties.

I imagine they'll have been going through a pile of documents and the hearing will start when they've done that. Hence why they could well be in a position to question the strength of the PL's case in the face of the evidence we provided.
Click to expand...
That's the ring a ding ding I'm getting, in my head. Obviously could be way off the mark but there definitely seems to be a shifting of, erm... something shifting.
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
That is a great post. Your description of the way these sort of cases play out is spot-on. The biggest moment in these legal battles is the advanced disclosure of documents. That's when everyone's cards are on the table. It seems clear that Masters is an imbecile but his lawyers are smart people who will not want to be publically humiliated.
Click to expand...
agree that is a great post
 
I raised the question in February about the IC reviewing initial submissions before the formal hearing and the possibility that the IC could deem the evidence weak meaning the case could close out earlier, but I think the response I got was the case would go the full distance. If the complainant is told by the IC that their evidence is weak or non existent early on there can only be one outcome. The case closes earlier or there is some sort of settlement with City holding most of the cards. Hopefully this is where things are now.
 
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