City launch legal action against the Premier League | Club & PL reach settlement | Proceedings dropped (p1147)

[I'm not really here]

This is something we had to do sooner or later.
Failure to do so would allow the cartel to continue imposing rules specifically designed to stifle new investment and competition. It impedes the progress of lesser clubs wishing to invest in their businesses to compete with the big boys and therefore preserves the status quo which makes it anti competitive, unfair and unjust and must be confronted.
I'm surprised it's taken City as long as it has to take some kind of legal action.

It felt like for ages that city were hoping to buddy up to the cartel with their apologetic nature towards them by throwing their own fans under the bus and the ESL situation etc. think they have finally accepted that they are never going to accept them and have stopped taking such a passive approach that has seen the club name dragged through the mud and hedges.

 

[Hamann Pineapple]

It felt like for ages that city were hoping to buddy up to the cartel with their apologetic nature towards them by throwing their own fans under the bus and the ESL situation etc. think they have finally accepted that they are never going to accept them and have stopped taking such a passive approach that has seen the club name dragged through the mud and hedges.

I won't be happy until Khaldoon bums Levy in the centre circle

 

[RayCTID]

I won't be happy until Khaldoon bums Levy in the centre circle

 

[oakiecokie]

View attachment 122706

With the legendary words "oooooooooooooooooooooo Matron".

 

[Kinkys Left Foot]

Can we not flay him and dip him in salt instead or are we saving that particularly unpleasant denouement for Nick Harris and the media gang of wankers.

 

[Tenerife City bar Stan]

View attachment 122706

 

[Indaparkside]

So anyone who has a query about a rule is automatically a red grow up

RAG

 

[blue b4 the moon]

You’re missing more than a few capital letters but you’ve made up for it with a surfeit of full stops.

Hmm Tolmie with words?

No capitals so not from London.

Lots of full stops to stifle City.

No knowledge.

Uses red rather than rag.

I'm going for Bingo, wondered where he'd turn up afterall he's been quiet for oooo days now.

 

[halfcenturyup]

PL Rules are subject to English law. So discovery is required. That’s all that counts, the different wording is irrelevant.

Fair enough, thanks. Don't know enough about this to ask sensible questions as you can probably tell, but can you think of any reason why City would request emails from the PL as part of its defence against allegations of filing incorrect accounts and off-the-books payments? And why that request would be enforced by the panel? I am struggling to see a justification but, as I said, I have no experience in all this.

 

[KS55]

Fair enough, thanks. Don't know enough about this to ask sensible questions as you can probably tell, but can you think of any reason why City would request emails from the PL as part of its defence against allegations of filing incorrect accounts and off-the-books payments? And why that request would be enforced by the panel? I am struggling to see a justification but, as I said, I have no experience in all this.

I don’t know whether City’s legal team suspect something such as an improper relationship with the redshirts, maybe, maybe not. If so, they would request disclosure.
The tribunal would err on the side of requiring disclosure to avoid prejudicing one side, ie disclosure makes knowledge equal. Of course, the tribunal could limit the amount called for as being too onerous but would avoid this if possible.

 

[halfcenturyup]

I don’t know whether City’s legal team suspect something such as an improper relationship with the redshirts, maybe, maybe not. If so, they would request disclosure.
The tribunal would err on the side of requiring disclosure to avoid prejudicing one side, ie disclosure makes knowledge equal. Of course, the tribunal could limit the amount called for as being too onerous but would avoid this if possible.

Good points, but what does an improper relationship with some clubs have to do with the allegations? If you get charged with breaking a law, you can't just expect to get a policeman's emails, or the judge's emails, to make sure they aren't biased, surely. There has to be a reason that is relevant to the case? Or maybe not, what do I know?

But I am still struggling with that. The justification in the APT case is clear, the 115 not so much. To me, anyway.

 

[mancboy]

Good points, but what does an improper relationship with some clubs have to do with the allegations? If you get charged with breaking a law, you can't just expect to get a policeman's emails, or the judge's emails, to make sure they aren't biased, surely. There has to be a reason that is relevant to the case? Or maybe not, what do I know?

But I am still struggling with that. The justification in the APT case is clear, the 115 not so much. To me, anyway.

One could suppose and it is a supposition that once liverpool and rui pinto accessed our systems that we may have decided to have a little look around in other systems to see what was about, maybe we know whats there and we are giving them enough rope to hang themselves of course that is all conspiracy theory and supposition but so was other teams cheating and hackers leaking to the press right up until it wasnt.

 

[cheekybids]

Good points, but what does an improper relationship with some clubs have to do with the allegations? If you get charged with breaking a law, you can't just expect to get a policeman's emails, or the judge's emails, to make sure they aren't biased, surely. There has to be a reason that is relevant to the case? Or maybe not, what do I know?

But I am still struggling with that. The justification in the APT case is clear, the 115 not so much. To me, anyway.

The Post Office inquiry has exposed the corruption of Post Office & Lawyers from their emails but wouldn’t be getting looked at if the Post Masters had their hand in their til.

I’m hoping City can prove they are innocent with the irrefutable evidence. If this has been ignored & the relationship is corrupt then that should lead to being implicated.

 

[nmc]

Good points, but what does an improper relationship with some clubs have to do with the allegations? If you get charged with breaking a law, you can't just expect to get a policeman's emails, or the judge's emails, to make sure they aren't biased, surely. There has to be a reason that is relevant to the case? Or maybe not, what do I know?

But I am still struggling with that. The justification in the APT case is clear, the 115 not so much. To me, anyway.

Unless there’s some evidence of the Red Tops being in contact with Pinto or Der Spiegel etc…. Unlikely I know but, someone is behind this bollocks.

 

[Plays By Sense Of Smell]

I won't be happy until Khaldoon bums Levy in the centre circle

Ha! Well, at least upon second reading I realised that says 'bums'.

Thought it was 'burns'.
Winnie Mandela style - emphatic, if a little extreme...

 

[mancboy]

Unless there’s some evidence of the Red Tops being in contact with Pinto or Der Spiegel etc…. Unlikely I know but, someone is behind this bollocks.

I dont think its as unlikely as you think it is, david gill has openly said in the past that city need to be stopped and he didnt seem to be fussed as to how and while im sure there will be a degree of separation within the communication i dont think it will be ever to so hard to follow a trail.

 

[HalfwayUpTheKippax]

Ha! Well, at least upon second reading I realised that says 'bums'.

Thought it was 'burns'.
Winnie Mandela style - emphatic, if a little extreme...

I'm tyred of this conversation

 

[petrusha]

Good points, but what does an improper relationship with some clubs have to do with the allegations? If you get charged with breaking a law, you can't just expect to get a policeman's emails, or the judge's emails, to make sure they aren't biased, surely. There has to be a reason that is relevant to the case? Or maybe not, what do I know?

But I am still struggling with that. The justification in the APT case is clear, the 115 not so much. To me, anyway.

To land any charge against us, the PL needs to show that we're guilty on the balance of probabilities. In other words, it's required to convince the Panel we're more likely to have acted as charged than not to have done so. Where the charges are especially serious, there's an additional requirement for the evidence to be particularly cogent.

Obviously, City's primary argument is that we haven't acted as charged. The audited accounts record the operations in question as legitimately performed and should be regarded as conclusive over whatever evidence the PL will produce to the contrary.

All well and good. But you never know for sure how the panel's going to respond to the evidence put before it. If you can make additional points to damage the credibility of their case, it's very much worth doing so.

Here, the point I assume we'll make is that the PL, in investigating and charging City, hasn't been acting as a good-faith regulator that's taking measures necessary to protect the sporting integrity of its competition. No, it's pursuing a witch hunt, egged on by our rivals, who have a disproportionate influence and a direct commercial interest in the PL punishing us.

If we can plant this seed in the minds of the members of the Panel, we make it correspondingly more difficult to believe that the PL's case as a whole meets the necessary standard of proof. After all, they're bound to be wondering why the PL would pursue a case against City if that case is as hopeless as we've publicly and vigorously alleged.

Should we present this argument persuasively and back it up with compelling evidence, we give them a reason for that. This is why it's important.

 

[halfcenturyup]

To land any charge against us, the PL needs to show that we're guilty on the balance of probabilities. In other words, it's required to convince the Panel we're more likely to have acted as charged than not to have done so. Where the charges are especially serious, there's an additional requirement for the evidence to be particularly cogent.

Obviously, City's primary argument is that we haven't acted as charged. The audited accounts record the operations in question as legitimately performed and should be regarded as conclusive over whatever evidence the PL will produce to the contrary.

All well and good. But you never know for sure how the panel's going to respond to the evidence put before it. If you can make additional points to damage the credibility of their case, it's very much worth doing so.

Here, the point I assume we'll make is that the PL, in investigating and charging City, hasn't been acting as a good-faith regulator that's taking measures necessary to protect the sporting integrity of its competition. No, it's pursuing a witch hunt, egged on by our rivals, who have a disproportionate influence and a direct commercial interest in the PL punishing us.

If we can plant this seed in the minds of the members of the Panel, we make it correspondingly more difficult to believe that the PL's case as a whole meets the necessary standard of proof. After all, they're bound to be wondering why the PL would pursue a case against City if that case is as hopeless as we've publicly and vigorously alleged.

Should we present this argument persuasively and back it up with compelling evidence, we give them a reason for that. This is why it's important.

I suppose. Thanks for your reply. I was just thinking there must be a very good reason for a disclosure request to be enforced by the panel / tribunal. Does there maybe being a witch-hunt against the club (or not) have enough relevance (in the eyes of the panel) to the 115 case to warrant such a stringent disclosure requirement? That is what is going on in my head ....

I bow, however, to the superior knowledge of people who know what they are talking about, and will shut up :)

 

[nmc]

I suppose. Thanks for your reply. I was just thinking there must be a very good reason for a disclosure request to be enforced by the panel / tribunal. Does there maybe being a witch-hunt against the club (or not) have enough relevance (in the eyes of the panel) to the 115 case to warrant such a stringent disclosure requirement? That is what is going on in my head ....

I bow, however, to the superior knowledge of people who know what they are talking about, and will shut up :)

I’m speculating but, maybe City have disclosed some emails that are damning against the PL and or our rivals and the panel want a more comprehensive picture to join up some of the dots or to put the said emails into some sort of context.