Yes. Though they may well have been the ones advising the PL to allegedly offer a deal.Same can be said of the PL legal team
We don’t know what advice the PL’s legal team gave them
They may have said, “taking into consideration the CAS decision and you have very little other evidence, we rate your chance of proving the case to be less than 10%”
And Masters is so balls deep in this he’s given the go ahead even though the odds are “massively” in City’s favour
I think "Blue" in his username means miserable.I see cheerful charlie has turned up.....
You missed "City".
We are applying pressure but the prem have a low block in place. Gonna take time to break them down.So who’s winning?
Very good , hahaDoesn't he play for Spuds?
Yeah, we had him tied up whilst posting comments on his phone from his social media accounts taking the piss out of the Rags as it couldn't possibly have been him.No chance! He’ll be treated like a saint for leaving big bad city! We had him tied to a chair with a gun to his head. Will be the way the media portray it!
If any leaks do come out from the hearing before it is closed then serious questions would have to be asked about the impartiality of the media and our lawyers should get them to reveal their sources. If not then we should put a total ban on all media attending our games at the Etihad, give them no press releases and remove all accreditation given sine die to certain journalists and pundits who have done nothing but besmirch the club ever since the alleged charges were made.our lawyers need to be ready to address the leaks and how they are used in the media to approach the non coop charges.
also showcase the media reporting on the case and how impartial this reporting is in general to make sure the independent panel is not influenced by it.
btw do we know who the panel is made of?
Yet according to the red shirted glory hunters, nobody cares about City.Never has a story received so much interest, so many opinions expressed, so many columns inches and hours of airtime, where the main contributors haven’t the slightest idea what they’re talking about.
No doubt they are. Keeper posted that the consequences for City would be dire IF the IC found we had breached the regulations and he received replies that dismissed his post as panic mongering. This is typical of many who dismiss the charges out of hand as a red conspiracy. They may be right, and neither Keeper! or I think there is any substance in the charges, but the club and its legal team have to take them very seriously indeed because the football authorities have taken possible breaches very seriously indeed in the past. Leeds City is one example and we all know the action taken against City in 1906. Neither Leeds nor City had a chance to defend themselves then - so we'd better do the job properly now. And flippant dismissal of real concerns doesn't help.I have no doubt that some no-mark wannabe hack is already using this post as a basis to pen 800 words on an article with the suggested headline, 'The Shocking Precedent that Could See Manchester City Put Out of Business'
If any leaks do come out from the hearing before it is closed then serious questions would have to be asked about the impartiality of the media and our lawyers should get them to reveal their sources. If not then we should put a total ban on all media attending our games at the Etihad, give them no press releases and remove all accreditation given sine die to certain journalists and pundits who have done nothing but besmirch the club ever since the alleged charges were made.
The hearing is very likely to match the timetable set out now. People will be scheduled as witnesses, experts scheduled, written and oral closings booked in. This is a hearing now designed to go a long way - look at the scale of the bundles being in brought in today to supplement the digital document bundle. Look at the number of junior barristers. All points to a long/10-12 week hearing as rumoured.Slbsn - Any chance that this case could be finished much sooner than the 12 weeks being mentioned.
Or at least sky blue 3 piecers- like the dipper spice boys.Why aren't they wearing our home kit?
If the glove don't fit, you must aquit!Could end up like the OJ Simpson trial
Ederson tries to put on a pair of keepers gloves and they don't fit.
For the PL, I'd say it shows there will be a lot of City witnesses the PL will want to cross examine - the senior juniors will need to work on cross examination plans aimed at extracting the answers the PL wants to undermine the credibility of witnesses ie make them look unreliable. In terms of KCs, it is likely because there are so many different areas of law - regulatory, civil fraud, accounting issues etc. For example Philip Marshall KC for City is a civil fraud specialist.Naive question, but why so many barristers? Do they all have different fields of expertise? Are they each covering different aspects of the case?
It make me feel much more confident about our future.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.
The hearing is very likely to match the timetable set out now. People will be scheduled as witnesses, experts scheduled, written and oral closings booked in. This is a hearing now designed to go a long way - look at the scale of the bundles being in brought in today to supplement the digital document bundle. Look at the number of junior barristers. All points to a long/10-12 week hearing as rumoured.
With not one iota of balance.Never has a story received so much interest, so many opinions expressed, so many columns inches and hours of airtime, where the main contributors haven’t the slightest idea what they’re talking about.