PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Ric said:
I had to stop following the MEN City Twitter account recently, just because every other post was speculating/fantasising about our prospective punishment. No tweets as far as I could see defending us or even reserving judgement. With “friends” like that, who needs enemies?
Click to expand...

It’s why I’ve always had a problem with Sam Lee. He’s supposed to be the journalist with inside knowledge on City, the clubs feelings & he’s close to the fans yet he’s not there giving any insight from the knowledgeable posters on here.
 
Maly said:
He did hack those clubs, along with a number of others across Europe, didn’t he?
Click to expand...
If he did then I'm sure we would have had his arse hauled up before the courts. No way would those red cartel clubs let him get away with it.
 
Eccles Blue said:
None taken. I AM an old woman. As long as you don’t say I haven’t got a sense of humour! ;-) :-)
Click to expand...
I have it on good authority that Eccles has already drafted her outline report on the case.
“Well done the boys in wigs, you showed ‘em, you showed ‘em all. The myopic nincompoops of PL lawyers were destroyed by Pannick, a Stones-like defender….”
 
KS55 said:
I have it on good authority that Eccles has already drafted her outline report on the case.
“Well done the boys in wigs, you showed ‘em, you showed ‘em all. The myopic nincompoops of PL lawyers were destroyed by Pannick, a Stones-like defender….”
Click to expand...
Have you been hacking into my files? *rofl*
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
I couldn't understand your response at first but think I've got it now.

There's a big difference in doing something that's deliberately deceptive and doing something you believe you have good grounds for. It's the difference between acting in bad faith and good faith.

For example, we proved to the comfortable satisfaction of the CAS panel that the Etihad sponsorship wasn't disguised equity investment, as we presented evidence that it had come from a source other than ADUG. So unless the PL has an email or other evidence that specifically contradicts that testimony, they will struggle to prove it. If they do have cogent evidence that there was a conspiracy to lie and mislead the panel, then we would be in serious trouble.

Same for Fordham. We didn't do that to hide expenses but to bring in revenue. I assume we took good legal and financial advice about that, and that we didn't act in deliberate bad faith. But the IC could potentially still find us in breach of something, but not that we acted deceptively.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, thanks.
 
mike1923 said:
Can’t find the original post from the person saying why haven’t we just taking the alleged offered 6 point deduction for an easier life

Would you take a reduced sentence of 5 years for a crime you haven’t, and can you prove you haven’t, committed?
Click to expand...
Hi I think the original post about the notion of a 6 point deduction is on page 7005.
 
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