PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

spinney said:
when hughes was sacked it was well reported that City were looking to bring mancini in as he was already working for ADUG in a consultancy role therefore already under contract to them

completely separate to any contract City would offer him when he became City manager

the '2 contracts' stuff is nonsense
Click to expand...
Virtually what I posted (your first 2 sentences). He was the Consultant for AD football or one of it's teams, it was obviously done to prevent him taking a Manager's job elsewhere, he knew he was coming to City at some stage.
 
halfcenturyup said:
This is interesting:

"Sources have told Football Insider the Premier League could now propose new rules are brought in [after the 115 case] to ensure the majority of its legal fees are paid for by a club if they are proven to have committed a financial breach."

Maybe they could better put themselves in a position that they don't have to keep charging clubs with "financial" offences .....
Click to expand...
I'm no lawyer but that sounds highly illegal?
 
halfcenturyup said:
This is interesting:

"Sources have told Football Insider the Premier League could now propose new rules are brought in [after the 115 case] to ensure the majority of its legal fees are paid for by a club if they are proven to have committed a financial breach."

Maybe they could better put themselves in a position that they don't have to keep charging clubs with "financial" offences .....
Click to expand...

Aren’t those rules already there, the loser picks up the majority of the costs?
 
Centurions said:
I'm no lawyer but that sounds highly illegal?
Click to expand...
No. It is common practice in civil cases, if you win a civil dispute, either the judge will also apply that they have to do so, or you can go to court again to cover the costs.
 
halfcenturyup said:
This is interesting:

"Sources have told Football Insider the Premier League could now propose new rules are brought in [after the 115 case] to ensure the majority of its legal fees are paid for by a club if they are proven to have committed a financial breach."

Maybe they could better put themselves in a position that they don't have to keep charging clubs with "financial" offences .....
Click to expand...

Classic PL. pressed by the Yanks to get all litigious they then reserve the right to moan about the cost. Perhaps they should focus on their error strewn processes as a cause of so many legal wrangles.
 
halfcenturyup said:
This is interesting:

"Sources have told Football Insider the Premier League could now propose new rules are brought in [after the 115 case] to ensure the majority of its legal fees are paid for by a club if they are proven to have committed a financial breach."

Maybe they could better put themselves in a position that they don't have to keep charging clubs with "financial" offences .....
Click to expand...
"Sources have told Football Insider...".

'nuff said
 
I use to ponder such things as, why can't other players see what super Kev sees, why does Doku wait for a second defender to be marking him before going on a run, why does Pep not make subs when it looks like a game is going down the bog etc etc. Now I struggle to get beyond the lawfare were embroiled in. This podcast with Nick De Marco KC is very very revealing, and maybe a glimpse intio the future, ie even more legal battles. If you have a spare hour...

 
Can’t be bothered to read 7499 previous posts, but has anyone thought about City claiming legal costs and claiming defamation from the Premier League for the damage to the club’s reputation, should City be exonerated? Of course they won’t, but it would be fun to penalise the four clubs threatening to sue for compensation if we are found guilty
 
ZanteWeatherman said:
I'm not young, just couldn't stand Star Wars, Star Trek on the other hand......
Click to expand...

cheekybids said:
Aren’t those rules already there, the loser picks up the majority of the costs?
Click to expand...
The problem is that the PL always claims a win even when it has found to be acting unlawfully and unfairly. Apparently this is the new way legal disputes are settled. When you lose the case you just claim your lawyers won more of the debates and everything is perfectly fine. A bit like the Yorkshire Ripper won his serial murders case when the police dropped the motoring charge against him for having false number plates!
 
I can see it now…
PL lose the case…
Next Shareholder meeting “Right lads, we may have lost, but can we have a vote to see if we should pay City’s costs??”
19-1 against us and the vote implies that we pay them…
 
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