PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

slbsn said:
I’m a 25 year qualified lawyer who has spent the last 10 years in active English litigation dealing with directly relevant matters including allegations of fraud, accounting irregularities, audit negligence and related cases. I’ve also got a fair bit of financial experience - thanks for noticing that too though.
Click to expand...
Yeh, but apart from all that…
 
Gorton_Tubster said:
So you are basing your info on what you think and desire rather than know? As it happens, the total opposite of what slbn does. I know which one I am going to ignore.
Click to expand...
I was only commenting on some guys post about Slbn. I don't know him for toffee so I'm not sure why you're bothering to chip for
 
hammocity said:
My Dad was at Ashton Grammar School with John Savident, AKA Fred, not friends though, think he was a batsman rather that a bowler (Fred not my Dad).
Click to expand...
I saw him in Sainsbury's on Regent Road once. Fortunately he didn't have a knife wielding, psychopathic rent boy in tow....
 
feedmpenzaandhewillscore said:
The building for the club is still there, think it’s a listed building. Makes me sad seeing it sat in the middle of those new builds, loved playing football on there.
Click to expand...
Thought they turned the building into flats, but not 100% sure. Yeah i played football therel a few times myself on them pitches.
 
slbsn said:
As you say, there is no chance the hearing was divided by charges. It’s divided into openings, witness evidence and cross examination, experts and closings. If it’s running slightly short it will likely be because less time than expected was required for cross examination of certain witnesses or, potentially, the experts agreeing with each other.
Click to expand...
As a layman I 100% accept this, but must admit I am completely baffled. How does all that evidence get mapped into the 130 specific charges across 13 years, at least 13 versions of the PL Handbook and 13 sets of accounts. Let's say eg, Simon Pearce was questioned again about his famous email which related to one sponsorship and in one FY. What specifc charges are relevant to his testimony ? Was this the reason it took 18 months to reach a hearing, ie the mappings were all agreed beforehand. I can see one hell of a master spreadsheet would be needed to manage the complexity. I have always assumed the ruling will state an outcome on every single charge, Maybe it will just do 13 outcomes, so one per year.
 
LeonardoDaVnci said:
As a layman I 100% accept this, but must admit I am completely baffled. How does all that evidence get mapped into the 130 specific charges across 13 years, at least 13 versions of the PL Handbook and 13 sets of accounts. Let's say eg, Simon Pearce was questioned again about his famous email which related to one sponsorship and in one FY. What specifc charges are relevant to his testimony ? Was this the reason it took 18 months to reach a hearing, ie the mappings were all agreed beforehand. I can see one hell of a master spreadsheet would be needed to manage the complexity. I have always assumed the ruling will state an outcome on every single charge, Maybe it will just do 13 outcomes, so one per year.
Click to expand...
Just one outcome:
“The PL were unable to show any cogent evidence that City broke any rules. We find for City in every case.”
 
slbsn said:
The gross spend on Pannick I heard was so high I didn’t believe it but the source was high quality so not sure
Click to expand...
There’s a huge amount at stake. At that level, if you want the best, in commercial terms, you’ll want to give yourself the best possible chance. So I get that. Totally.

Whatever it is, he’ll be worth it. Those guys, at the very top of the Bar, are on another level to the rest of the profession. Essentially the difference between KDB and Johnjo Shelvey.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
There’s a huge amount at stake. At that level, if you want the best, in commercial terms, you’ll want to give yourself the best possible chance. So I get that. Totally.

Whatever it is, he’ll be worth it. Those guys, at the very top of the Bar, are on another level to the rest of the profession. Essentially the difference between KDB and Johnjo Shelvey.
Click to expand...
Presumably Adam Lewis falls into the same category as Pannick though?
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
There’s a huge amount at stake. At that level, if you want the best, in commercial terms, you’ll want to give yourself the best possible chance. So I get that. Totally.

Whatever it is, he’ll be worth it. Those guys, at the very top of the Bar, are on another level to the rest of the profession. Essentially the difference between KDB and Johnjo Shelvey.
Click to expand...
KDB doesn't arrive to work in a spaceship though
 
slbsn said:
I’m a 25 year qualified lawyer who has spent the last 10 years in active English litigation dealing with directly relevant matters including allegations of fraud, accounting irregularities, audit negligence and related cases. I’ve also got a fair bit of financial experience - thanks for noticing that too though.
Click to expand...

That’s all fine and dandy, but according to age old BM tradition, you need to brush up on your music videos when you post updates. Thanks in advance
 
BerkshireBlue said:
I thought he was a financial adviser rather than a lawyer and should be treated as a finance guy rather than a legal guy. That's why I ignore anything he has to says on legal matters as it is just a random person's point of view which usual is wrong. He's good at finances but that's his limitation
Click to expand...
There's no way you're going to catch anyone with that.
 
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