PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[nmc]

The lawyers will be getting pissed while the accountants argue over how to split the bill.

And the lawyers are drinking the best Champagne because they’ll invoice all expenses to the client.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

And the lawyers are drinking the best Champagne because they’ll invoice all expenses to the client.

And the accountants are drinking bitter shandy because they're boring bastards.

 

[ufo]

City are 100% guilty.

I've seen most of the evidence, it's not confidential.

To most interested observers, legal or otherwise, they will concede to the evidence in plain sight.

City have or will admit their guilt.

 

[Rory Bluelow]

Still, if a law professor widely considered one of the most experienced and respected arbitrators at the CAS had his way UEFA would have won. There's always a risk.

I think he was voting supporting his principals at UEFA in the knowledge they’d be a (losing) minority. I also think one of his staff or research assistants wrote up the reasoning behind his opinions - it was very weak from memory.

 

[Roachy]

City are 100% guilty.

I've seen most of the evidence, it's not confidential.

To most interested observers, legal or otherwise, they will concede to the evidence in plain sight.

City have or will admit their guilt.

This post really is something special.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

Part of the reason I'm convinced our case is more a witch-hunt than a genuine concern for upholding rulesi without fear or favour s that senior people at the club believe it is and have told me so. But you could argue that they would say that.

But then you look at the PL's actions in other situations and you can only conclude they really aren't bothered about upholding rules.

• The illegal Liverpool access to our scouting database. Regardless of our security or lack of it, they broke the law of the land when they did that, as well as core PL rules around behaviour towards other clubs. Yet it was hushed up, rather than being handed over to the police, as it should have been. I imagine they had pressure brought on them not to do that and to settle quietly. And when it all did come to light, their excuse was 'it was too long ago'.
• Their treatment of Leicester, where the tribunal appointed by them eventually found their rules were imprecise enough to overturn the penalty imposed by the original tribunal. Instead of accepting that, and ensuring the rule were watertight, the rumour is they'll appeal.
• The APT rules, where they 100% knew exclusion of soft loans was likely to be illegal, yet went ahead with some of the member clubs' wishes to exclude them. It was also quite clear from the partial judgement that some clubs felt we were in breach of IAS 24, and that's why those rules were brought in.

That doesn't shout that the PL is an organisation whose primary purpose or values are protection of its own rules, or even the law of the land, at the expense of favouritism towards or discrimination against certain clubs.

Spot on. In addition the evidence from the APT case shows clearly that the PL leadership have been acting in bad faith. They were unreasonable and unfair according to the Judges. I would describe their behaviour as malicious.

 

[petrusha]

Whether it be you, PB, Stefan you are all pulling bits of information together and making very sound, reasonable predictions and observations based on that.

Without seeing the case and the evidence, your at best shooting somewhat in the dark.

It is entirely possible to see all that and get it wrong, so without it anyone blaming you is just angry as opposed to being rational.

Out of interest as a lawyer if a case is 70/30 does it win 70% or more often and likewise if a case is 50/50 does it win half the time or more likely to lose.

I appreciate the obvious answer isn’t always the right one.

I'm not a litigator, but have some experience including instructing litigators as an in-house lawyer and being involved in the process. Others may therefore speak with more authority, but in case they can't reply and so that someone can respond, I'll have a go.

Also, bear in mind that there are no 'slam-dunk' cases in real life, and that those who do it for a living will say that in litigation there's always a chance you can lose no matter how strong the case might seem. Also bear in mind that there may be cases that are hard to judge because, for example, there are no precedents for cases involving those issues.

But my experience is that when you're told by your advisers that you have a strong case, you usually win. When the experts think it could go either way, you may or may not win. And when they think your case is a long shot, you'll usually lose.

In other words, complete surprises are relatively rare. But in any individual case, you can always get a shock.

 

[Maly]

I think he was voting supporting his principals at UEFA in the knowledge they’d be a (losing) minority. I also think one of his staff or research assistants wrote up the reasoning behind his opinions - it was very weak from memory.

If I remember correctly, he reasoned we were guilty as we didn’t cooperate

Odd stance, but I’m pretty certain that’s what one of his juniors wrote

 

[halfcenturyup]

Still, if a law professor widely considered one of the most experienced and respected arbitrators at the CAS had his way UEFA would have won. There's always a risk.

There is risk in everything, every second of every day. But that doesn't mean you should worry about it all. The chance of the panel being anything other than scrupulously fair is pretty close to zero, imho.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

Actually, they don’t. What they all recognise I think is that within any large regulatory body there will be a number of actors who all have their different motivations. With the CPS for instance there may be some who are very keen to devote resources to particular types of crime, some may be ambitious hot shots willing to go after a perceived untouchable, some may have personal motivations for wanting to prosecute particular types
of crimes, there may be directives from on high they are under pressure to comply with.

It is very likely the same with the PL. it is unlikely that the PL was under no pressure at all from certain quarters to bring proceedings against City. It is possible some within the decision making pyramid were so keen to bring proceedings they rather overlooked the evidential hurdles they would face. There may have been some who think charging City was necessary even if the prospects of success were low so as to avoid allegations of complicity and cover up. There may be some who thought the evidence against City was overwhelming.

You factor in the number of charges and the period in question and the charging decision seems stranger, and more potentially the product of wider influences being brought to bear. However until we know what evidence the PL are relying on, we’re guessing. What we know however that charging decisions like this are made with the input of a variety of individuals all of whom have their own interests and reasons in mind in recommending that charges are brought. It is possible that some of those concerns are illegitimate, it is highly unlikely that they all were.

What the lawyers in the thread have faith in, I think, is the quality of the eventual process. The APT arbitration shows that when you put flimsy reasoning before a high quality tribunal you get torn to pieces. I think we all hope that is what will happen here, and the difficulties the PL face have been commented on at some length. But until we know what the evidence is, as I say, we’re guessing.

So true. Internal politics always plays a part. Look at the recent CPS actions after the Southport riots. All organisations are subject to external influence of some sort.

 

[mancboy]

There is risk in everything, every second of every day. But that doesn't mean you should worry about it all. The chance of the panel being anything other than scrupulously fair is pretty close to zero, imho.

theres more a risk of you getting a round in than us losing this case ;)

 

[Chris in London]

theres more a risk of you getting a round in than us losing this case ;)

You haven’t understood the thread at all. Most people are reasonably confident about the case, whilst recognising the risk that we might lose.

There is categorically no chance whatsoever of HCU getting a round in.

 

[mancboy]

You haven’t understood the thread at all. Most people are reasonably confident about the case, whilst recognising the risk that we might lose.

There is categorically no chance whatsoever of HCU getting a round in.

fair point , well made

 

[KS55]

It's not so much that, IMO. I'd say that non-lawyers are just less comfortable expressing themselves in fairly categorical terms. You've written, "I think it most likely the PL ... don't have a chance of landing the most serious charges." Now, "most likely" does qualify your statement a bit but you're still sounding very confident.

I take the point made yesterday by @gordondaviesmoustache that not all lawyers are inherently cautious. However, a lot of us spend our time trying to caveat everything for a living and it comes across in many lawyers' assessments on here.

“The reason most people think lawyers are scumbags is because they complicate everything.” Erin Brockovich. (The film, not the real person.)

 

[KS55]

The lawyers will be getting pissed while the accountants argue over how to split the bill.

No, that’s teachers.

 

[KS55]

Magic Hat is a bad-faith actor who demonstrably lacks skills in terms of processing and evaluating legal evidence and is seeking to portray the emails as conclusive proof. If they really were some kind of 'smoking gun', as he/she maintains, you wouldn't have had stellar rosters of lawyers, including some of the country's top silks, participating in a hearing such as this before three extraordinarily eminent figures for three months at a cost of tens of millions.

I haven't actually looked at the emails for a long time, but I've read all of them (pre- and post-CAS) that have ever been released. Clearly, they didn't make City look good and one thing I was actually struck by was that some of the asides looked highly unprofessional, not least the crack about "one down and six to go" or whatever it was. And I also reckoned that the one posted on here the other day in which Simon Cliff spoke about "taking down" the global PwC organisation in response to advice the firm gave UEFA sounded a bit crass, IMO.

But do they actually show MCFC to be guilty of serious wrongdoing covered by accusations made by the PL? Remember these things about emails. First, what are claimed to be apparent references to unlawful acts may be, in fact, discussions of how to perfectly legally circumvent laws or regulations to achieve a business objective in the manner in which legitimate businesses across the globe seek to do each day. Second, in any event, the fact a course of action was referred to in an email isn't conclusive evidence that it happened.

In the CAS hearing, to refute the contents of the emails adduced during those proceedings, part of the evidence City put forward consisted of the club's own accounting records and that of sponsors, as well as direct witness testimony. It would be extremely difficult for the PL to persuade the Panel that it needs to dismiss as evidence the accounting records of City and its sponsors, rejecting the views of their auditors at the same time, together with the personal testimony of distinguished, successful and experienced businessmen. They'd all have to be in on it.

Remember what City said before the CAS: “These very serious allegations necessarily involve a conspiracy on the part of MCFC, its shareholder, and these two sponsors [Etihad and Etisalat]. Large numbers of executives not just within MCFC but also those sponsors and the respective auditors would have to be complicit in order to facilitate such a scheme. Whatever Magic Hat says, that's all highly dubious unless the subsequent Award tells us otherwise.

'

Yes. It’s worth repeating:
Emails are evidence of a conversation, not of any events mentioned in them.
The PL has to show (on the balance etc) that those breaches alluded to in the emails actually took place. That is their problem.

 

[Gone for a Burton]

Fucking hell - you're sounding like that Magic Twat fella

I only deal in irrefutable facts, anything else is time-wastingly pointless.

Is this "Evidence" in the public domain as discussed ad-infinitum in this thraad?

Or do you have a super secret mole?

 

[Gone for a Burton]

I only deal in irrefutable facts, anything else is time-wastingly pointless.

It's in the pd if you know where to look and where to look from.

 

[Centurions]

Not sure if wumming.

Early onset...

 

[Mr Grumpy]

Yes. It’s worth repeating:
Emails are evidence of a conversation, not of any events mentioned in them.
The PL has to show (on the balance etc) that those breaches alluded to in the emails actually took place. That is their problem.

AKA: "Where's the body?"