PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Newman Noggs said:
It's an interesting question which is, as you suggest, difficult to answer absent sight of the evidence. However, my thinking is that the decision-making progress in bringing the charges may form part of the case because the question of "good faith" in the allegations is subjective.

That is to say someone at the PL has looked at the evidence and formed the opinion that City's actions constutute dishonesty. Whilst, obviously, it is ultimately for the Commission to decide, as it's implicit in the most serious charges, it would seem to be legitimate to cross examine whoever made that decision to bring out whether that opinion was arrived at properly.

Unlike, for example, the Secretary of State who, because (s)he can't see everything, is accepted as being able to delegate that power to their civil servants, I don't think Masters can shift that responsibility. Given the seriousness of the case and all its implications, he absolutely must have signed off on it and, therefore, should be able to justify it.

City, may, of course, believe that the decision-making process was impeccable or that there is nothing to be gained by challenging it but I suspect not and that Masters will end up being cross examined. I certainly hope so.
Click to expand...

I have no experience in any of this, but it's interesting to learn and it's all fascinating as fuck.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
It’s funny when you’re not fully immersed in something, and you apply your mind to it fleetingly, you can easily miss something. I always assumed at the back of my mind Masters would give evidence, but thinking about it, it doesn’t make sense, so it was a red herring!

Difficult to see any oral discussions that weren’t minuted taking the case very far one way or the other. Would that even constitute ‘knowledge’? I expect the PL rules require any notification to them to be in writing?

And yes, Masters’ view on sanctions will have no evidential merit whatsoever. That’s plainly a matter for submissions upon a finding of the charges being proved (in part or full).
Click to expand...

I would expect City to have wanted everything confirmed in writing and wouldn't have accepted verbal confirmation in isolation.

I think Masters being at the centre of this means you'd expect him to be there, but he serves no purpose. I wouldn't have thought we'd rely on any witnesses from the PL. I'd expect us to have everything in written statements and will be confident our own witnesses will get everything thrown out, as they did at CAS. I wonder if Mancini has been asked to attend?
 
slbsn said:
In fairness, the sponsorship allegations, if all proved, are quite material and serious albeit quite a while ago.
Click to expand...

Why would City need to top up a sponsorship deal from say Etisalat given that Etisilat are a multi billion pound company (an Asian Vodaphone)

I know that the argument is that the deal was too small so ADUG made up the difference but how plausible is that? If City wanted to make a “friendly deal” with Etisilat surely they would make sure they were going to pay what City wanted not a tenth of it?!

I know that’s the allegation but it makes no common sense to me.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Hostile witnesses is the preserve of the criminal courts and is where your own witness is giving unexpected and unhelpful answers. In those circumstances you can apply to the court to treat the (and your own) witness as hostile and thereby cross examine them.
Click to expand...

See, I told you I know nothing about any of this :)

Different question then. Can the club call Masters as a witness?
 
Milesvk said:
Seeing some people asking if city's evidence at the beginning is so strong could charges be dropped.
Different scenario but hopefully might produce some optimism.
I was in crown court on a 2 week trial (as the accused) on day 1, after the jury was sworn in, the prosecution presented its case against me and others. The judge called up the prosecution barrister and directly asked him what the case was against me. The barrister replayed a video of my actions, the judge pulled a de-niro type face saying 'really'.
I still had to go through all the process, cross examination and everything else.
The judge stated in his closing speech to the jury to basically not to find me guilty. The jury found me not guilty.
Think the point I'm making is even if it's a slam dunk for city on day one, I imagine the whole process will have to be completed and concluded.
Click to expand...
Are you still not allowed near schools and nurseries?
 
Newman Noggs said:
It's an interesting question which is, as you suggest, difficult to answer absent sight of the evidence. However, my thinking is that the decision-making progress in bringing the charges may form part of the case because the question of "good faith" in the allegations is subjective.

That is to say someone at the PL has looked at the evidence and formed the opinion that City's actions constutute dishonesty. Whilst, obviously, it is ultimately for the Commission to decide, as it's implicit in the most serious charges, it would seem to be legitimate to cross examine whoever made that decision to bring out whether that opinion was arrived at properly.

Unlike, for example, the Secretary of State who, because (s)he can't see everything, is accepted as being able to delegate that power to their civil servants, I don't think Masters can shift that responsibility. Given the seriousness of the case and all its implications, he absolutely must have signed off on it and, therefore, should be able to justify it.

City, may, of course, believe that the decision-making process was impeccable or that there is nothing to be gained by challenging it but I suspect not and that Masters will end up being cross examined. I certainly hope so.
Click to expand...

That's definitely possible. I would anticipate a confidence in dealing with the charges one by one, but you make sure you take on anything and everything that gives you the chance of getting the case(s) dismissed. That would include the procedural process the PL have undertaken in order to bring charges. Timing is so suspicious around this, so it might be worthwhile getting that on the table and asking why the charges were brought despite the hacked emails being public knowledge for a considerable time, and tying it to the independent regulator looming over the PL. I don't think the panel will be too concerned by any of that, but as you say we don't know the details of the case so hard to comment. But it just plants that seed of doubt which may count for something in the long game.
 
Newman Noggs said:
It's an interesting question which is, as you suggest, difficult to answer absent sight of the evidence. However, my thinking is that the decision-making progress in bringing the charges may form part of the case because the question of "good faith" in the allegations is subjective.

That is to say someone at the PL has looked at the evidence and formed the opinion that City's actions constutute dishonesty. Whilst, obviously, it is ultimately for the Commission to decide, as it's implicit in the most serious charges, it would seem to be legitimate to cross examine whoever made that decision to bring out whether that opinion was arrived at properly.

Unlike, for example, the Secretary of State who, because (s)he can't see everything, is accepted as being able to delegate that power to their civil servants, I don't think Masters can shift that responsibility. Given the seriousness of the case and all its implications, he absolutely must have signed off on it and, therefore, should be able to justify it.

City, may, of course, believe that the decision-making process was impeccable or that there is nothing to be gained by challenging it but I suspect not and that Masters will end up being cross examined. I certainly hope so.
Click to expand...
I get what you’re saying but (other than in relation to non cooperation) what is the evidential merit of the process that led to the decision to charge us?

If it was flawed (which it manifestly was) how does that make it less likely we have broken the rules which we’ve been accused of breaking. How does a decision in 2023 affect something that was alleged to have occurred in 2009 (for example)?
 
slbsn said:
The only disclosure from the PL would have been related to specific points - this idea that City asked for “all PL correspondence” has always been nonsense. Just doesn’t work like that.
Click to expand...

I think it’s because many of us have no knowledge of these proceedings but have recently been able to see Post, & Covid enquiries. You even see Masters asked “Warrabout City” by the select committee so it kind of fills us with hope, no matter how fanciful.
 
I have a very basic question which I am sure has an easy answer, apologies if it has been covered.

When Abramovic sold Chelsea, I am sure I read he wiped off a 1.5B pound loan. Now surely if it was easy as just drawing up a loan from the owner to the club, why would City choose to fudge sponsorship deals or make secret payments to people? Why was it also acceptable for a loan of that side be made from owner to the club, then simply wiped off? Couldn't the sheikh send a billion our way then say actually don't worry about it?
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
I get what you’re saying but (other than in relation to non cooperation) what is the evidential merit of the process that led to the decision to charge us?

If it was flawed (which it manifestly was) how does that make it less likely we have broken the rules which we’ve been accused of breaking. How does a decision in 2023 affect something that was alleged to have occurred in 2009 (for example)?
Click to expand...

There would be no evidential merit in terms of the charges themselves but you'd imagine, like at CAS, we do make the point that there has been a witch-hunt and failures within the organisation that caused us concern. It's unlikely to get us anywhere, it didn't with CAS for example and led to the non-cooperation fine, but I would anticipate the club still make that point and question the timing of everything.

In all honesty it's a similar case as the PL are likely making. We assume there's been pressure from the history boys to bring charges, with a looming independent regulator being threatened. The PL assume the hacked emails point to fraudulent activity. Both are making a huge jump and are very hard/impossible to prove. But it doesn't stop you trying.
 
supercity88 said:
There would be no evidential merit in terms of the charges themselves but you'd imagine, like at CAS, we do make the point that there has been a witch-hunt and failures within the organisation that caused us concern. It's unlikely to get us anywhere, it didn't with CAS for example and led to the non-cooperation fine, but I would anticipate the club still make that point and question the timing of everything.
Click to expand...
I think it’s a valid line of cross examination to pursue with any witness who is in a position to assist but the tribunal may well intervene if they think it’s not relevant to the charges, especially if it’s repeatedly pursued.

I guess it depends on how the PL litigates the non-cooperation in their evidence as much as anything. If City’s defence to that is the PL was acting in bad faith and you shouldn’t be compelled to cooperate with a bad faith actor then I would guess it’s got to be a valid line of questioning.
 
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