PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Sofiablu said:
What if he (and others) decline to be cross examined?
Click to expand...
I think you’re getting it the wrong way round mate.

Each party will have submitted a number of witness statements from individual witnesses to advance their case. The opposing side will then either agree the statement because it contains nothing they want to challenge (because there is nothing controversial or it is expedient not to do so) in which case the witness will not be required to attend, but otherwise the assumption is that the witness will be tendered for cross examination, which means attending to give live evidence and being asked questions on the content of their statement, and other matters that are within their knowledge.


It’s not normally obligatory for a witness to attend in this setting (although I think there is the power to compel a witness to do so via the High Court, it is unlikely to be exercised here) and if they don’t then hearsay being permissible the witness statement is admissible as evidence but little weight will be attached to it, as the other side has not had the opportunity to challenge its contents via cross examination.

If they do attend then the other side will have the opportunity to cross examine them. If they don’t answer the question (a tediously common refrain) then the advocate (if they are any good) will simply ask it again until they get an answer, or the tribunal intervenes, and so as a consequence of their failure to answer questions that are put, their evidence will doubtless be viewed as ‘evasive’, ‘not credible’ or worse and will most likely undermine the case of the party they are giving evidence in behalf of.

So, ultimately no-one can be compelled to answer any question, but by avoiding the question, or answering it with a non-sequitur response, or responding with another question etc..all serve to undermine what is contained in their written statement, which is ultimately one of the principal aims of cross examination, although eliciting other answers for wider tactical reasons is another.

As an advocate, it’s the hardest, and usually last skill to master, but at its finest it’s the most effective weapon and what separates the great from the merely good.

And I expect Pannick will be fucking brilliant at it. It usually helps if you’re far smarter than the person you’re asking questions of, which in relation to Masters will unquestionably be the case.
 
Stoned Rose said:
Agreed. But we still have to abide by them.
Click to expand...
No we don’t… allegedly-:)


Don’t buy the opinion that you have to abide by protectionist rules. City today in its current form would be Newcastle or worse Everton.

The club had no choice but to sign up and to find ways around it.
 
I assume this 10 weeks hearing may be like each Monday, maybe half of Tuesdays each week, rather than 5 days a week for 10 weeks.

if our lawyers are on the point, they must have put the fear into PL already. some charges may be off the table already.

confidential or not there were leaks of snippets from the Everton and Forest cases as well, same will be here.

if any more comment is still confident, bullish on our side next weeks, after weeks of hearing and our lawyers coming back with good info, that will be a great sign.

I am sure Masters is on the phone to Arse, dippers, rags each week with some updates. Berrada updated on the City commercial things lol the irony. I am telling my rag friends Berrada will be taken by the FBI first if we did do any illegal thing here.:)))
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
I think you’re getting it the wrong way round mate.

Each party will have submitted a number of witness statements from individual witnesses to advance their case. The opposing side will then either agree the statement because it contains nothing they want to challenge (because there is nothing controversial or it is expedient not to do so) in which case the witness will not be required to attend, but otherwise the assumption is that the witness will be tendered for cross examination, which means attending to give live evidence and being asked questions on the content of their statement, and other matters that are within their knowledge.


It’s not normally obligatory for a witness to attend in this setting (although I think there is the power to compel a witness to do so via the High Court, it is unlikely to be exercised here) and if they don’t then hearsay being permissible the witness statement is admissible as evidence but little weight will be attached to it, as the other side has not had the opportunity to challenge its contents via cross examination.

If they do attend then the other side will have the opportunity to cross examine them. If they don’t answer the question (a tediously common refrain) then the advocate (if they are any good) will simply ask it again until they get an answer, or the tribunal intervenes, and so as a consequence of their failure to answer questions that are put, their evidence will doubtless be viewed as ‘evasive’, ‘not credible’ or worse and will most likely undermine the case of the party they are giving evidence in behalf of.

So, ultimately no-one can be compelled to answer any question, but by avoiding the question, or answering it with a non-sequitur response, or responding with another question etc..all serve to undermine what is contained in their written statement, which is ultimately one of the principal aims of cross examination, although eliciting other answers for wider tactical reasons is another.

As an advocate, it’s the hardest, and usually last skill to master, but at its finest it’s the most effective weapon and what separates the great from the merely good.

And I expect Pannick will be fucking brilliant at it. It usually helps if you’re far smarter than the person you’re asking questions of, which in relation to Masters will unquestionably be the case.
Click to expand...

What a showcase that would be, up there with the sick swan or smashing Madrid…….

Quite a few people have mentioned some charges may be off the table already. Why would the premier league do this rather than allowing the arbitrator to make a decision?
 
Last edited:
BerkshireBlue said:
The rules are nothing like they were in 2009/10 have you done any research on it whatsoever
Click to expand...

I have done a little research in the last eighteen months. You know, since this whole thing started. Rules change, they develop. That's normal. The crux of the matter is that the club had to provide accounts to the PL, it had to provide an audit opinion on those accounts and it had to provide interim/future financial information. And it had to do all that in good faith.

But, once again. Explain to me the changes in the rules in respect of the most serious allegations between 2009/10 and 2017/18 that have any substantive effect at all on those allegations.

Actually, never mind, if you are hanging your hat onto a literal reading of the individual rules without seeing the bigger picture of alleged conspiracy and fraud, then it would be wasting all our time.

We clearly don't agree on anything. It's nothing personal, but I think I will leave you to it. I hope you are right, though. If you are, the hearing will be done and dusted by tonight. I wouldn't have any problem with that.
 
Damanino said:
I assume this 10 weeks hearing may be like each Monday, maybe half of Tuesdays each week, rather than 5 days a week for 10 weeks.

if our lawyers are on the point, they must have put the fear into PL already. some charges may be off the table already.

confidential or not there were leaks of snippets from the Everton and Forest cases as well, same will be here.

if any more comment is still confident, bullish on our side next weeks, after weeks of hearing and our lawyers coming back with good info, that will be a great sign.

I am sure Masters is on the phone to Arse, dippers, rags each week with some updates. Berrada updated on the City commercial things lol the irony. I am telling my rag friends Berrada will be taken by the FBI first if we did do any illegal thing here.:)))
Click to expand...
No - very likely to be Monday to Thursday 10-4 every week. Maybe some gaps for witness availability but generally a lot of ground will be covered over 10 proper weeks.

This week will have been oral openings where the two sides take the panel through an overview of the case and evidence. Next week, I’d expect witness cross examination to kick off - PLs witnesses first although their evidence is not likely critical or particularly disputed.
 
wolviedinho said:
No we don’t… allegedly-:)


Don’t buy the opinion that you have to abide by protectionist rules. City today in its current form would be Newcastle or worse Everton.

The club had no choice but to sign up and to find ways around it.
Click to expand...
There is finding ways round the rules and then there is breaking them they are two very different things especially when breaking those rules involves breaking the law
 
halfcenturyup said:
I have done a little research in the last eighteen months. You know, since this whole thing started. Rules change, they develop. That's normal. The crux of the matter is that the club had to provide accounts to the PL, it had to provide an audit opinion on those accounts and it had to provide interim/future financial information. And it had to do all that in good faith.

But, once again. Explain to me the changes in the rules in respect of the most serious allegations between 2009/10 and 2017/18 that have any substantive effect at all on those allegations.

Actually, never mind, if you are hanging your hat onto a literal reading of the individual rules without seeing the bigger picture of alleged conspiracy and fraud, then it would be wasting all our time.

We clearly don't agree on anything. It's nothing personal, but I think I will leave you to it. I hope you are right, though. If you are, the hearing will be done and dusted by tonight. I wouldn't have any problem with that.
Click to expand...

Why would it be done and dusted tonight? All I'm talking about is pre 2014, for some reason you seem to think the charges are all the same for every season. The main charges are from 2015 to 2017 and these charges are where the fraud element kicks in. The wording of rules the 2014/2015 are below for removal of doubt for you


E.53. Each Club shall by 1 March in each Season submit to the Secretary: E.53.1. copies of its Annual Accounts for T-1 (and T-2 if these have not previously been submitted to the Secretary) together with copies of the directors’ report(s) and auditors’ report(s) on those accounts; E.53.2. its estimated profit and loss account and balance sheet for T which shall: E.53.2.1. be prepared in all material respects in a format similar to the Club’s Annual Accounts; and E.53.2.2. be based on the latest information available to the Club and be, to the best of the Club’s knowledge and belief, an accurate estimate as at the time of preparation of future financial performance; and E.53.3. if Rule E.56 applies to the Club, the calculation of its aggregated Adjusted Earnings Before Tax for T, T-1 and T-2 in a form approved by the Board

E.54. The Board shall determine whether consideration included in the Club’s Earnings Before Tax arising from a Related Party Transaction is recorded in the Club’s Annual Accounts at a Fair Market Value. If it is not, the Board shall restate it to Fair Market Value.

E.55. The Board shall not exercise its power set out in Rule E.54 without first having given the Club reasonable opportunity to make submissions as to: E.55.1. whether the said consideration should be restated; and/or E.55.2. what constitutes its Fair Market Value.

E.56. If the aggregation of a Club’s Earnings Before Tax for T-1 and T-2 results in a loss, any consideration from Related Party Transactions having been adjusted (if appropriate) pursuant to Rule E.54, then the Club must submit to the Secretary the calculation of its Adjusted Earnings Before Tax for each of T, T-1 and T-2.

E.57. If the aggregation of a Club’s Adjusted Earnings Before Tax for T, T-1 and T-2 results in a loss of up to £15m, then the Board shall determine whether the Club will, until the end of T+1, be able to pay its liabilities described in Rule E.14.7.1 and fulfill the obligations set out in Rules E.14.7.2 and E.14.7.3.

E.58. If the aggregation of a Club’s Adjusted Earnings Before Tax for T, T-1 and T-2 results in a loss of in excess of £15m then the following shall apply: E.58.1. the Club shall provide, by 31 March in the relevant Season, Future Financial Information to cover the period commencing from its last accounting reference date (as defined in section 391 of the Act) until the end of T+2 and a calculation of estimated aggregated Adjusted Earnings Before Tax until the end of T+2 based on that Future Financial Information; E.58.2. the Club shall provide such evidence of Secure Funding as the Board considers sufficient; and E.58.3. if the Club is unable to provide evidence of Secure Funding as set out in Rule E.58.2, the Board may exercise its powers set out in Rule E.15.

E.59. If the aggregation of a Club’s Adjusted Earnings Before Tax for T, T-1 and T-2 results in losses of in excess of £105m: E.59.1. the Board may exercise its powers set out in Rule E.15; and E.59.2. the Club shall be treated as being in breach of these Rules and accordingly the Board shall refer the breach to a Commission constituted pursuant to Section W of these Rules.
 
OrigamiNinja said:
Just reading through the talk about witness's being called and people being cross-examined. Couldn’t help but think how much I would love Pannick to have the self-proclaimed expert Nick Harris in front of him. I’d definitely watch that episode.
Click to expand...
Harris in the morning session. Then he comes back in the afternoon wearing a stick on moustache and fake glasses with goggly eyes, so Pannick can also pick the brains of his Magic Hat persona.
 
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