PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

mancboy said:
Obviously you're knowledge is far greater than mine, but in my limited experience if the main charges are solid its unusual for the lesser ones to be added as they dont add anything to the case overall but they certainly play well in the press.
Click to expand...
This is true in all litigation - you'd focus on your strong claims and not dilute them with loads of noise from other matters. The PL chose a kitchen sink approach which I think is a mistake. But I don't think it necessarily signals that they expect to lose the serious ones. It really would be a strange move to pursue a case of this nature without confidence in the core of the case.
 
slbsn said:
This is true in all litigation - you'd focus on your strong claims and not dilute them with loads of noise from other matters. The PL chose a kitchen sink approach which I think is a mistake. But I don't think it necessarily signals that they expect to lose the serious ones. It really would be a strange move to pursue a case of this nature without confidence in the core of the case.
Click to expand...
but as you said if they were confident in the core of the case why dilute it with the spurious claims, the only reason to do that would be so that it looked good in the press, from a legal standing muddying the waters would just weaken the case as a whole.
 
salfordbluetrue said:
I think that is your professionalism shining through. Offset this by viewing the damage, the cartel under the PL guise, has done to City`s business acumen over the decade, and the costs. Then look at who is going to pay for this attack because the cartel will offset all costs, onto every club in every league, it is a win win for the cartel regardless of the outcome.
Click to expand...

City can't be paying to towards the costs of charging City !
 
The premier league, cartel & media worked together to demonise City ahead of any charges in the tried & trusted way to ensure full support of public opinion. It’s the same as if they are attacking a politician, invading a country……

  • Fabricating atrocities
  • Creating a sense of fear
  • Promoting nationalism
  • Distraction & diversion
It’s been handled completely differently to Chelsea or any other clubs.
 
slbsn said:
This is true in all litigation - you'd focus on your strong claims and not dilute them with loads of noise from other matters. The PL chose a kitchen sink approach which I think is a mistake. But I don't think it necessarily signals that they expect to lose the serious ones. It really would be a strange move to pursue a case of this nature without confidence in the core of the case.
Click to expand...

You are basing this on an assumption that the PL is acting in good faith, but the IC's judgment for the APT case casts significant doubt on that notion.

I said something similar last night, but it's of greater likelihood that the PL is acting maliciously than City undertaking material accounting fraud for a decade, simply due to the number of parties that would be involved.

Occam's Razor, and all that.
 
Bluewonder said:
You are basing this on an assumption that the PL is acting in good faith, but the IC's judgment for the APT case casts significant doubt on that notion.

I said something similar last night, but it's of greater likelihood that the PL is acting maliciously than City undertaking material accounting fraud for a decade, simply due to the number of parties that would be involved.

Occam's Razor, and all that.
Click to expand...
I think way before the apt case was heard we could surmise that the pl was acting in bad faith, the fact that an incorrect charge sheet was released to the press before any discussion with city would suggest that they were acting in bad faith from the start and it only gets worse from there.
 
slbsn said:
Well it would be great if you are right and I have credited the PL with more credibility than they deserve.
Click to expand...
And don't forget Masters classic Freudian slip, when asked in an interview if City's dominance could damage the PL in some way. He replied "regimes come and regimes go, and soon another club will take over the top spot...".
First of all "regime" surely only meant in the political context, yeah racism Kick It Out. Secondly how could he possibly know City would not remain dominant. Was it just wishful thinking or someone who has made it his professional ambition to make it happen, for reasons known only unto himself.
I would have opened our defence with that video swiftly followed by questions to Masters, what precisely did he mean, regimes come and regimes go, that invertebrate would snap like a twig,
 
cheekybids said:
It’s all double speak, even when complimentary it’s a subtle dig at the organisation. I wasn’t suitable to the boardroom with my reluctance to avoid saying what it is.

“Khaldoon Al Mubarak, the chairman of Manchester City, praised Alison Brittain after the recent trophy presentation. Her presence and genuine warmth while greeting the players were noted positively, especially in contrast to the Premier League chief executive's absence.”
Click to expand...

The bottom line is if she works for the PL she’ll be a **** of the highest order.
 
Bluewonder said:
You are basing this on an assumption that the PL is acting in good faith, but the IC's judgment for the APT case casts significant doubt on that notion.

I said something similar last night, but it's of greater likelihood that the PL is acting maliciously than City undertaking material accounting fraud for a decade, simply due to the number of parties that would be involved.

Occam's Razor, and all that.
Click to expand...
But your premise is simply not true - certainly the APT Tribunal said nothing of the sort. I do think that there is some risk of severe criticism of the PLby the IC if they lose this case because if you bring such serious allegations you tend to be criticised if you fail and often penalised by a big costs order (FWIW).
 
LeonardoDaVnci said:
And don't forget Masters classic Freudian slip, when asked in an interview if City's dominance could damage the PL in some way. He replied "regimes come and regimes go, and soon another club will take over the top spot...".
First of all "regime" surely only meant in the political context, yeah racism Kick It Out. Secondly how could he possibly know City would not remain dominant. Was it just wishful thinking or someone who has made it his professional ambition to make it happen, for reasons known only unto himself.
I would have opened our defence with that video swiftly followed by questions to Masters, what precisely did he mean, regimes come and regimes go, that invertebrate would snap like a twig,
Click to expand...
All completely irrelevant - come on. You know this stuff is not relevant to the case.
 
LeonardoDaVnci said:
And don't forget Masters classic Freudian slip, when asked in an interview if City's dominance could damage the PL in some way. He replied "regimes come and regimes go, and soon another club will take over the top spot...".
First of all "regime" surely only meant in the political context, yeah racism Kick It Out. Secondly how could he possibly know City would not remain dominant. Was it just wishful thinking or someone who has made it his professional ambition to make it happen, for reasons known only unto himself.
I would have opened our defence with that video swiftly followed by questions to Masters, what precisely did he mean, regimes come and regimes go, that invertebrate would snap like a twig,
Click to expand...
i have genuinely never heard another club referred to as a regime, an era maybe but never a regime, that is such a weird and faintly racist way of describing our era of success.
 
slbsn said:
But your premise is simply not true - certainly the APT Tribunal said nothing of the sort. I do think that there is some risk of severe criticism of the PLby the IC if they lose this case because if you bring such serious allegations you tend to be criticised if you fail and often penalised by a big costs order (FWIW).
Click to expand...
while i tend to agree that the apt case didnt outright say that the pl had acted in bad faith although it was questioned why it was only our sponsorship deals were delayed, i do question why the charge sheet (which was incorrect) was leaked to the press before city, i think that is a bigger indicator of them acting in bad faith from the beginning.
 
slbsn said:
But your premise is simply not true - certainly the APT Tribunal said nothing of the sort. I do think that there is some risk of severe criticism of the PLby the IC if they lose this case because if you bring such serious allegations you tend to be criticised if you fail and often penalised by a big costs order (FWIW).
Click to expand...
You're the lawyer, and perhaps you're coming at the term 'good faith' from a technical point of view, but I fundamentally disagree that a party is acting entirely in good faith if it is found, on seven occasions, to have acted unreasonably, unfairly and unlawfully (against its own legal advice, no less!) against a member club.
 
mancboy said:
while i tend to agree that the apt case didnt outright say that the pl had acted in bad faith although it was questioned why it was only our sponsorship deals were delayed, i do question why the charge sheet (which was incorrect) was leaked to the press before city, i think that is a bigger indicator of them acting in bad faith from the beginning.
Click to expand...

It was in the press before it was the on the PL website, iirc. Not a good look but not important otherwise.
 
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