PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Could one of the computer geniuses put together a compilation of relevant videos/ photos in one thread (preferably without replies) so that they can be found in one handy, pocket sized thread? Thanks
 
IronsideKozuch said:
Would love to hear our legal team arguments on the matter, because surely they have some (I admire Pannick for years and read two of his books), but I just think we make grave mistake by not addressing publicly the merits of charges.

Where is Khaldoon, legal, accounting team? Why you leave Pep alone with this shit?

You do not spoil Your standpoint or make a mess or fuss to avoide offending anybody, therein obviously the panel. But also as a lawyer as a ultima ratio you should publicly defend Your Client if hes publicly under fire and total attack. You defend publicly with class and dignity. And to address the claims even at overall level.

Charges have been made public and I dont recall any subsantial, official line of our defense ffs.

We can say in general and ambiguous terms, that they took emails out of context for instance about need of payment by a sponsor because its been in accordance to contract and performance payments, which were happening at regular basis etc. I mean, short summary of whatever we put forward in the pleadings.

Publicity, media attacks you. PL made charges public. You can and should defend yourself appropriately, including to drive the public narrative in Your favour. I just would love to learn the reasoning from our legal team/PR strategists. They are exceptional experts so they would probably come up with something convincing but for now Im angry;)
Click to expand...
So in effect give the prosecution prior notice as to what our defence will be allowing them to specifically prepare counter arguments for it? Yeah, great idea!
 
slbsn said:
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.
Click to expand...
I hope Mr Marshall gets as much compensation as he possibly can from the Premier League. And some.
 
kippaxwarrior said:
Kaveh Solhekol. Who famously said the rags were getting an £80M player for £40M in Donny Van Der Beek.

The same player who they sold for £500K to Girona this summer
Click to expand...

Tbf anybody who takes any notice of this **** deserves every bit of frustration that ultimately follows.

The twat is a knownowt who pretends to understand and trots out shit as instructed by his paymasters.
 
slbsn said:
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.
Click to expand...
Sorry to labour the point though, but surely there aren’t any answers that can be extracted that suits the Prem as bar some bollocks emails that have been spliced together, there isn’t anything we’ve actually done wrong?
 
thelostoasismember said:
From April:

„Alberto Galassi, Member of the Board at Man City and CEO of Ferretti Group on the 115 charges:

"I am not entitled to discuss this, but perhaps you can tell from my body language I am super confident"
Click to expand...
Alberto Galassi is also an attorney specialising in arbritration. So assume his knowledge of this is better than Masters, Delaney, Neville Sisters and any other dim wit commenting on it.
 
TheGhost said:
I think I’d prefer for us to be found guilty of all charges. But when they punish us we only get a paltry £1m fine.
Click to expand...
Sorry, no sale.

Fuck "found guilty".

Regardless of the sentence/ punishment guilt is fucking guilt.

The red fuckers of course want to see the entire library thrown at us... but at the end of the day they want us GUILTY.

EXONERATION with a quick turn to exacting retribution is the only acceptable course that this goes for any supporter of this club.
 
kingn6 said:
Alberto Galassi is also an attorney specialising in arbritration. So assume his knowledge of this is better than Masters, Delaney, Neville Sisters and any other dim wit commenting on it.
Click to expand...
Masters who is a marketing specialist and has a degree of geography for sure is a top law specialist :-)
 
Rammy Blue said:
Sorry to labour the point though, but surely there aren’t any answers that can be extracted that suits the Prem as bar some bollocks emails that have been spliced together, there isn’t anything we’ve actually done wrong?
Click to expand...

Well that is exactly what the hearing, with its thousands (or possibly millions) of documents, is there to decide.

The emails are not bollocks, though. They clearly provide a basis for investigation (indeed CAS said as much). However, proving that (a) the emails mean what the PL/City's accusers say they mean, and even if they do, that (b) the arrangements were actually implemented, is another matter entirely. Not least because if proven, you are looking at a multi party conspiracy across many years.

That was always going to be near impossible to prove at CAS, with only a few emails in evidence in a two/three day hearing. In this hearing however, over two or three months, with millions of documents and ample chance to cross examine witnesses, it will be entirely possible IF the evidence supports the charges.

In short, we on the outside simply don't know if City have done something wrong, or (if there is some doubt about that) which way the evidence points.

The club seem confident. That is good. I wouldn't be too dismissive of what the emails say, though. They are concerning.
 
Rammy Blue said:
Sorry to labour the point though, but surely there aren’t any answers that can be extracted that suits the Prem as bar some bollocks emails that have been spliced together, there isn’t anything we’ve actually done wrong?
Click to expand...
We can't know that for sure though as there simply isn't enough information in the public domain for anyone not directly involved with the case to know what evidence the PL and indeed City have. Looking at the amount of documents carted into the hearing this morning I think it's safe to assume it amounts to more than a handful of emails. The time scheduled for the hearing would also suggest there is more to contemplate than emails.
 
Braggster said:
Well that is exactly what the hearing, with its thousands (or possibly millions) of documents, is there to decide.

The emails are not bollocks, though. They clearly provide a basis for investigation (indeed CAS said as much). However, proving that (a) the emails mean what the PL/City's accusers say they mean, and even if they do, that (b) the arrangements were actually implemented, is another matter entirely. Not least because if proven, you are looking at a multi party conspiracy across many years.

That was always going to be near impossible to prove at CAS, with only a few emails in evidence in a two/three day hearing. In this hearing however, over two or three months, with millions of documents and ample chance to cross examine witnesses, it will be entirely possible IF the evidence supports the charges.

In short, we on the outside simply don't know if City have done something wrong, or (if there is some doubt about that) which way the evidence points.

The club seem confident. That is good. I wouldn't be too dismissive of what the emails say, though. They are concerning.
Click to expand...
But I’m happy to believe Khaldoon when he says “irrefutable evidence”. I completely understand your post, I’m not daft, I just can’t believe we could ever be so stupid as to leave a paper trail that gives the Prem any ounce of proof that we’ve circumnavigated the rules.
 
Rammy Blue said:
But I’m happy to believe Khaldoon when he says “irrefutable evidence”. I completely understand your post, I’m not daft, I just can’t believe we could ever be so stupid as to leave a paper trail that gives the Prem any ounce of proof that we’ve circumnavigated the rules.
Click to expand...
Lets be honest, the PL must have something tangible or we wouldn't be staring down the barrel of a 12 week hearing and a 3 month adjournment to find a verdict. But in the same way that those insist we are guilty have no idea if that is actually true we have no idea of our innocence.
 
Braggster said:
The club seem confident. That is good. I wouldn't be too dismissive of what the emails say, though. They are concerning.
Click to expand...

I think it may have been Stefan who said on here a long time ago that often in these sorts of cases, both sides can often be extremely confident in their own respective position but obviously only one side will win the day based on the evidence heard/read.

For that reason, the noises of confidence within the club doesn't do too much to increase my own, I think it's best not to pay too much attention to that side of things.

My confidence purely comes from the scale of the allegations which we are facing. They just don't seem plausible let alone provable.
 
Whenever you have a moment of doubt just tell yourself this, since our owners came they have hired the best in every area to carry out their plan and brought about a team the likes of which the pl has never seen before and they did all that with a cartel trying every dirty trick in the book to try and stop them, why would they not do exactly what theyve done all along now.

If you want even further clarification our owners can point to 12 years of success for evidence of our owners keeping their word, the pl can point to richard masters a man with so little self respect he took a job that 4 much better qualified candidates publicly rejected.
 
Rammy Blue said:
But I’m happy to believe Khaldoon when he says “irrefutable evidence”. I completely understand your post, I’m not daft, I just can’t believe we could ever be so stupid as to leave a paper trail that gives the Prem any ounce of proof that we’ve circumnavigated the rules.
Click to expand...
In fairness he was never going to say 'loose evidence which might help' was he.
 
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