PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

slbsn said:
- sloppy but irrelevant
Click to expand...
Not sure it could be characterised as irrelevant as to the competence and efficacy of the charging authority, which has to potentially bear some relevance to the weight and likelihood of success of the charges.

If the charging authority can’t get the pleadings right, how can they be expected to have the wherewithal to get the charges home?

If you read some PoCs that were manifestly wrong would you, ceteris paribus, view it as irrelevant to the prospects of success in a claim?

If someone can’t get the basics right and then it’s usually a sign of wider failings.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Not sure it could be characterised as irrelevant as to the competence and efficacy of the charging authority, which has to potentially bear some relevance to the weight and likelihood of success of the charges.

If the charging authority can’t get the pleadings right, how can they be expected to have the wherewithal to get the charges home?

If you read some PoCs that were manifestly wrong would you, ceteris paribus, view it as irrelevant to the prospects of success in the claim?

If someone can’t get the basics right and then it’s usually a sign of wider failings.
Click to expand...
well we don't know if the pleadings or whatever they call it was also wrong. Perhaps the PL's press team had an earlier version or something. It is sloppy but in the context of a 6 year process (so far) I would not give it the credence you suggest. They clearly have very capable lawyers both in the PL and, particularly, externally.

Again, I may be being naive on this one too and giving the other side far too much credit.
 
Len Rum said:
Why doesn't Fordham justify a case on it's own?
Click to expand...
Old issue, very questionable there is any case, can hardly be said it was hidden when it was previously called Manchester City Image Rights, had its office at the Etihad and certain City execs as directors but in fairness I haven't spent much time on it over the years - just never looked very significant to me.
 
slbsn said:
Don't know what you are referring to re 0 LEI.

Don't think the 186 is saying the disciplinary is about RPTs - it may be but can't read such a redaction that way. I ask again though why the PL wouldn't have challenged the none RPT status of Etihad in any year since 2009 but make it a point in 2023. And if so, why not add a breach of the true and fair for each season since 2017/18 on this basis.

City would have engaged with whatever was a) required b) they felt served their purposes to convince the PL to cease the investigation. But it would not provide documents that would open up disclosure routes down the line ie it would only disclose documents it was always going to have to disclose if it went further.
Click to expand...
Despite Gvardiol’s best efforts we managed to go in at HT (and subsequently FT) with a clean sheet…
 
slbsn said:
well we don't know if the pleadings or whatever they call it was also wrong. Perhaps the PL's press team had an earlier version or something. It is sloppy but in the context of a 6 year process (so far) I would not give it the credence you suggest. They clearly have very capable lawyers both in the PL and, particularly, externally.

Again, I may be being naive on this one too and giving the other side far too much credit.
Click to expand...
I guess it’s down to whether the press release was a legal or PR failing but it’s hard to see how the latter could operate in a vacuum.

And the wider failings of the PL when applying their own rules should also be weighed into the balance. It’s not like they’ve ever given the appearance of authority when it comes to applying their own rules.

I’m sure the legal professionals the PL have instructed are more than capable, but what makes you believe the in-house bods are?

And I don’t think someone as manifestly cautious as you could ever be correctly characterised as naive. I think that would be, to some extent, a contradiction in terms. You are naturally cautious and reserved when expressing your views. That is distinct from being naive.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
I guess it’s down to whether the press release was a legal or PR failing but it’s hard to see how the latter could operate in a vacuum.

And the wider failings of the PL when applying their own rules should also be weighed into the balance. It’s not like they’ve ever given the appearance of authority when it comes to applying their own rules.

I’m sure the legal professionals the PL have instructed are more than capable, but what makes you believe the in-house bods are?

And I don’t think someone as manifestly cautious as you would ever be correctly characterised as naive. I think that would be, to some extent, a contradiction in terms. You are naturally cautious and reserved when expressing your views. That is distinct from being naive.
Click to expand...
He beat up Simon on Talksport in a most reserved manner!
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
I guess it’s down to whether the press release was a legal or PR failing but it’s hard to see how the latter could operate in a vacuum.

And the wider failings of the PL when applying their own rules should also be weighed into the balance. It’s not like they’ve ever given the appearance of authority when it comes to applying their own rules.

I’m sure the legal professionals the PL have instructed are more than capable, but what makes you believe the in-house bods are?

And I don’t think someone as manifestly cautious as you could ever be correctly characterised as naive. I think that would be, to some extent, a contradiction in terms. You are naturally cautious and reserved when expressing your views. That is distinct from being naive.
Click to expand...
If you say so ;-). Naively or cautiously, I don't believe the PL are morons and that small mistakes are made frequently without indicating a level of incompetence that some suggest.
 
slbsn said:
If you say so ;-). Naively or cautiously, I don't believe the PL are morons and that small mistakes are made frequently without indicating a level of incompetence that some suggest.
Click to expand...
Not sure I would characterise that as a small mistake. I’d be mortified to be associated with it, and I’d be surprised if you weren’t too.
 
slbsn said:
- irrelevant really
- irrelevant
- sloppy but irrelevant
- I think the allegation is that City concealed matters so should also suffer the consequences of that in all rules if proven

I don't think any of these play to the question of ignoring legal advice on the City charges. But as I said, perhaps I am just naive.
Click to expand...
Firstly, thank you so much for your legal input into this thread. It’s been enlightening say the least

I’d certainly not call you naive, but some of our opposition have been proven to not play with a straight bat, shouldn’t the be taken into consideration, regardless of their standing in the business world?

It’s been proven that FSG certainly have a history of not playing by the rules in the US & UK, Joe Lewis at Tottenham definitely doesn’t, Abramovich didn’t, Kroenke doesn’t

(Don’t know about any other owners)

So there’s 4 clubs with owners whom have all had a history of not playing by the rules

Plus we have the hateful 8 letter, again indicating that some of our fellow PL shareholders aren’t playing fair

So I suppose my question is, could a number of clubs, let’s say 8 for arguments sake, put pressure on the PL to follow this through regardless?

Or do I need more/less meds?
 
Maly said:
Firstly, thank you so much for your legal input into this thread. It’s been enlightening say the least

I’d certainly not call you naive, but some of our opposition have been proven to not play with a straight bat, shouldn’t the be taken into consideration, regardless of their standing in the business world?

It’s been proven that FSG certainly have a history of not playing by the rules in the US & UK, Joe Lewis at Tottenham definitely doesn’t, Abramovich didn’t, Kroenke doesn’t

(Don’t know about any other owners)

So there’s 4 clubs with owners whom have all had a history of not playing by the rules

Plus we have the hateful 8 letter, again indicating that some of our fellow PL shareholders aren’t playing fair

So I suppose my question is, could a number of clubs, let’s say 8 for arguments sake, put pressure on the PL to follow this through regardless?

Or do I need more/less meds?
Click to expand...
I would also add that the timing of PL announcements plays into this cynicism. They tend to be on the eve of big games. Again, suggestive of an agenda by the clubs that form part of the PL and are calling the shots.
 
Last edited:
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