City launch legal action against the Premier League | Club & PL reach settlement | Proceedings dropped (p1147)

halfcenturyup said:
I think the burden of proof for the claimant would be incredibly high, especially against witness evidence to the contrary.

It's the 115 case in reverse, I suppose.

Edit: Let me try that again. The proof would have to be particularly cogent to counter witness evidence when the burden of proof is on the claimant. Is that any better? Fucking accountants playing lawyer :)
Click to expand...
Even so, if someone said they had an aiibi for a crime you'd ask them to prove it.

"Other than your word for it, what evidence is there for how concern about Portsmouth and debt was transformed into rules that do not include any issue with debt?"
 
halfcenturyup said:
True. I also wonder if it's dawned on Harris the Magic Twat yet ....

That, for me, is one of the big takeaways. Again. That it's very difficult to prove that somebody actually meant what they appear to say in an email, if that person appears credible to a panel and can provide another explanation, even if that explanation appears to be completely at odds with what was written in the email.

It worked against the club as the claimant in the APT case and it should work against the PL as the claimant in the 115 case.
Click to expand...
Yep, the email about Gulf states wasn't really about Gulf states.
 
And the Der Spiegel email about how we might get round the rules?

"This was just a bit of generic speculation about how any club might get round the rules. We had discussions too about how the rules might be formulated to include owner investment but not debt, as we also speculated that rivals might try to fix things that way."

Do you have evidence of that?

"Well, no, but we refer you to the case of Man City v FA premier league where a witness gave unsubstantiated evidence that the rules derived from concern about debt and the tribunal accepted that, with no explanation of how or why debt was then excluded from the rules."
 
Think the rules being changed will drag on for a long time.
I think city will have enough support so they don't get voted through again by 14 clubs without major changes, including the owner loans.
Think there will also be enough support to stop the owner loans being included.
 
Chris in London said:
It has the sniff of something the tribunal might order if there was a credible allegation that we had been unfairly and specifically singled out and targeted...
Click to expand...

I agree :)

The one email referred to in the APT case caused a stink by pretty carelessly and unneccessarily referring to "Gulf states" and I can only imagine how much more careless and unnecessary correspondence has been flying around between the PL and certain clubs in respect of City in the past fifteen years.

Maybe the club got hold of one and that was an "in" to getting disclosure of everything. It was always said the club had a "file". Who knows? Maybe that was true.

Anyway, as @petrusha said (much) earlier in the thread it won't help much with the core issues of the case, but anything that casts doubt on the intentions of the PL or its good faith will chip away at their credibility when it comes to evidence and counter evidence.

As you say though, interesting.
 
Last edited:
Damocles said:
He's left now, he went to some property estate agent thing or something. When he said it on social media, about 20 players both past and present all commented on it publicly
Click to expand...
I know but the joke doesnt work if i put hes like that brandon the ex kit guy who used to work 4 us but now works 4 an estate agent lol
 
halfcenturyup said:
I agree :)

The one email referred to in the APT case caused a stink by pretty carelessly and unneccessarily referring to "Gulf states" and I can only imagine how much more careless and unnecessary correspondence has been flying around between the PL and certain clubs in respect of City in the past fifteen years.

Maybe the club got hold of one and that was an "in" to getting disclosure of everything. It was always said the club had a "file". Who knows? Maybe that was true.

Anyway, as @petrusha said (much) earlier in the thread it won't help much with the core issues of the case, but anything that casts doubt on the intentions of the PL or its good faith will chip away at their credibility when it comes to evidence and counter evidence.

As you say though, interesting.
Click to expand...

There will be so much dirt dragged up here. It’s another area Stefan has told us we are getting carried away but I can’t believe there isn’t evidence & we won’t use it to formulate our defence. I also imagine our allies will have found emails in their own servers. How often did the Mike Ashley ownership vote for rules aimed at City.
 
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