PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Naive question, but why so many barristers? Do they all have different fields of expertise? Are they each covering different aspects of the case?
 
The mood on here is positive even very confident, even bordering on the euphoric, but a warning that we have to secure the dismissal of these allegations, including the allegation of non-cooperation, as our one and only objective. The club claims tohave evidence which proves beyond any doubt that we have broken no regulations and we have a legal team capable of arguing our case at least as well as any other. But the hearing as only just begun and it is ridiculous to start dreaming of how we can settle scores with the cartel, with the corrupt PL and with the big mouthed Tebas. Believing much of the PL's evidence against us is hacked emails - which prove nothing - we are confident that the emails the PL may have had to release will prove both the existence of the cartel (rather than lobbying of the PL by rival clubs) and the corruption at the hear of the PL. As tall an order as the PL in proving we did what we haven't done. And then there is Tebas, a lawyer who is careful what he says and actually angers us by general statements Pep can agree with. I'll settle for a clear IC statement that we have don nothing wrong.
 
Manchester_lalala said:
Is this the only thing regarding the Etisalat deal which was in the leaked emails? Surely if this has been explained at CAS, this part of the alleged breaches will be knocked off?
Click to expand...

The new emails from der Spiegel didn't include any new Etisalat-specific information, although they did include information about sponsorships generally.

But let's not forget, the PL will have seen much more information than der Spiegel leaked, after their four year investigation. They may have some unanswered questions on other years.

But Jaber Mohammed was pretty much explained at CAS.
 
mccity said:
Naive question, but why so many barristers? Do they all have different fields of expertise? Are they each covering different aspects of the case?
Click to expand...

They'll have different areas of expertise, but there will be a lead and then a team supporting. It's also about image. It might have served the PL better if they dragged in some peasant in an old wrinkled suit just to make sure the rhetoric about us having the better lawyers was truly cemented.
 
The best one I have heard today is 20 of the 115 charges City has already been found guilty off haha haha

Look I see it as City can not lose because if you think, if we are found guilty we are taking everybody else down with us, The whole system is bent to the core, just look over the road when Utd fudged £75 million in allowances with PSR and others ask for allowance was but was turned down, Utd even said it because of our annual turnover is greater than the rest hahahaah BENT to the core
 
The Stockport Iniesta said:
Annabelle?

She must have gotten out of that jam jar then.
Click to expand...


When I see her all I can think of is Giggity mate :)

giphy.gif
 
HelloCity said:
I wonder if they asked us for third party documents, such as those relating to Etihad, and we said we don't have the jurisdiction to provide them.

The PL then marked this as being failure to cooperate.
Click to expand...
I've long suspected this could be the case. The way they changed the APT rules to entitle themselves to third party documentation also supports this point.
 
Having read the CAS outcome when it came out, I cannot see how the substantive charges can be proven considering they adjudged there was no evidence. The bar is high and if the PL have 'evidence' of serious fraud, then they would have been duty bound to inform the SFO.

Many of the other charges will likely be disputed on technical grounds such as Mancini's contract which was signed before the PL introduced FFP rules so how can City breach rules that did not exist.

I can't see this being anything other than a big fine for not cooperating and some points deducted for possible procedural breaches which will probably be appealed in the same way Leicester won their case.

As for 100 point deductions or excluded, only somebody with a low IQ and zero understanding of commercial or corporate litigation really thinks that will happen. We will know soon enough though.
 
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