PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Obviously I have no idea whether the club have been officially told the outcome or not. But, there is a middle ground between having been actually told the result, and knowing what the result is going to be. It is feasible that as the proceedings went on and the evidence was heard, that the fine legal minds on both sides could clearly see where the case was going, and by the end, the City team could say with (near) certainty that the case against us just hadn’t been made. Hence the obvious air of confidence transmitted ever since.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Sorry, I am being a bit slow this morning. Having trouble with release, communication and publication. Trying to explain to @Damocles last night why I think Sam fucking Lee is a **** has had an effect :)

"Once the decision is communicated to the parties and published by the Panel (the timing of which is subject to discussion), then it is to be released as soon as practicable."

Does this mean the panel can "communicate" their decision to the parties and then the two parties can discuss with the panel when the judgment can be "published" to the parties, after which "publication" it must made available to the public reasonably quickly?

Or is the "communication" of the decision and the "publication" by the panel to the parties simultaneous and the whole thing open to discussion about timing?

Excuse the quotation marks. They just reflect my confusion over release, communication and publication.

If you could explain it clearly as you would to someone mentally challenged, because that is how I am feeling at the moment on this whole topic, I would appreciate it.
Click to expand...
I think the parties could (but may well not) write to the panel and say:

1) due to football diary issues, the parties request that any decision is not released between x and y and, if finalised by the Panel, is held over to z at the earliest
2) both parties agree that they would, say, like to receive a draft decision for x days (say 7) for reading, minor changes etc before being handed down in final form. I'd expect the draft from the panel to look like a court draft headed in a similar way to this example I received recently:

IN CONFIDENCE​

This is a draft Decision sent to the parties to enable them to submit typing corrections and other obvious errors. This draft is confidential to the parties and their representatives and accordingly neither the draft itself nor its substance may be disclosed to any other person or used in the public domain. The parties must take all reasonable steps to ensure that its confidentiality is preserved. No action is to be taken (other than internally) in response to the draft before the Decision has been communicated to the parties in final form.


This feels possible. If the parties write in agreement, the panel is more likely to follow such requests.

But I don't see how once it is finalised and handed down ("communicated" to the parties or "published" to the parties) in final form, the PL rules demand release ("published" to the outside world) within a few days (as soon as practicable) and if they have had if for a week in draft (lets say), it would need to go the same day as being handed down in final form. Both parties are paranoid about leaks anyway so once they have the decision even in draft the clock is ticking.

The Everton and Forest cases didn't even give the parties very long to make comments - they had a few hours. Again because of leak paranoia.

Like Everton and Forest, it is absolutely possible that the decision is received in draft, handed down to the parties in final form and published to the world on the same day - I think it is unlikely with such a long document but it just will depend on the leak paranoia.

The one complexity here is if the first hearing is liability only ie Part 1, with a sanction hearing to follow, perhaps the parties could construe the PL rules to say no public release of the written decision is required until Part 2 is decided. I doubt it but not impossible. But obviously if there is to be no sanction hearing to follow this proviso wouldn't exist.
 
Whether or not said:
Obviously I have no idea whether the club have been officially told the outcome or not. But, there is a middle ground between having been actually told the result, and knowing what the result is going to be. It is feasible that as the proceedings went on and the evidence was heard, that the fine legal minds on both sides could clearly see where the case was going, and by the end, the City team could say with (near) certainty that the case against us just hadn’t been made. Hence the obvious air of confidence transmitted ever since.
Click to expand...
i think thats where were at, the club will have an idea, a good idea from Pannicks post hearing report to the club, not 100% but very close being within 5% of the expected outcome, this would have been made clear by Pannick within days of the hearing ending so the club has been aware for quite some time, the transfer activity and other business dealings at the club during this period does suggest were clear and have won
 
slbsn said:
I think the parties could (but may well not) write to the panel and say:

1) due to football diary issues, the parties request that any decision is not released between x and y and, if finalised by the Panel, is held over to z at the earliest
2) both parties agree that they would, say, like to receive a draft decision for x days (say 7) for reading, minor changes etc before being handed down in final form. I'd expect the draft from the panel to look like a court draft headed in a similar way to this example I received recently:

IN CONFIDENCE​

This is a draft Decision sent to the parties to enable them to submit typing corrections and other obvious errors. This draft is confidential to the parties and their representatives and accordingly neither the draft itself nor its substance may be disclosed to any other person or used in the public domain. The parties must take all reasonable steps to ensure that its confidentiality is preserved. No action is to be taken (other than internally) in response to the draft before the Decision has been communicated to the parties in final form.


This feels possible. If the parties write in agreement, the panel is more likely to follow such requests.

But I don't see how once it is finalised and handed down ("communicated" to the parties or "published" to the parties) in final form, the PL rules demand release ("published" to the outside world) within a few days (as soon as practicable) and if they have had if for a week in draft (lets say), it would need to go the same day as being handed down in final form. Both parties are paranoid about leaks anyway so once they have the decision even in draft the clock is ticking.

The Everton and Forest cases didn't even give the parties very long to make comments - they had a few hours. Again because of leak paranoia.

Like Everton and Forest, it is absolutely possible that the decision is received in draft, handed down to the parties in final form and published to the world on the same day - I think it is unlikely with such a long document but it just will depend on the leak paranoia.

The one complexity here is if the first hearing is liability only ie Part 1, with a sanction hearing to follow, perhaps the parties could construe the PL rules to say no public release of the written decision is required until Part 2 is decided. I doubt it but not impossible. But obviously if there is to be no sanction hearing to follow this proviso wouldn't exist.
Click to expand...

OK. Thanks. Appreciate your patience.

I still have questions but I will give everyone a rest :)
 
Marvin. said:
That is compatible with the argument that City believe that the judgement, whenever it is delivered, will be in their favour. We can read their confidence through the actions of Pep, Haaland and major signings, whose decisions must have been informed. This is not strong grounds for confidence but enough to keep me hopeful.
Click to expand...
Major signings you say, that why no RB yet. Only joking btw
 
Sorry, but I was out for a long-arranged meal with some old friends last night. A bit inconsiderate I know when I should have cancelled and stayed in to be patronised by pompous and self-righteous dickheads on here.

I'll say what I said a few days ago, which is that if I'm confident of my source, I'll post if I can in good faith, I don't make stuff up for attention. I've had my fingers burnt before and it may be that I've had my fingers burnt again. I don't know, but I do know that if I am wrong, no one will die because of that. And if I'm right, no one will be miraculously cured of life-threatening illnesses.

And I'm still confident on the basis of what we do know that we have no case to answer on the substantive charges.

And champagne gets me very pissed and is the only drink that gives me a hangover. So can I have red wine please?
 
Last edited:
Prestwich_Blue said:
Sorry, but I was out for a long-arranged meal with some old friends last night. A bit inconsiderate I know when I should have cancelled and stayed in to be patronised by pompous and self-righteous dickheads on here.

I'll say what I said a few days ago, which is that if I'm confident of my source, I'll post if I can in good faith, I don't make stuff up for attention. I've had my fingers burnt before and it may be that I've had my fingers burnt again. I don't know, but I do know that if I am wrong, no one will die because of that. And if I'm right, no one will be miraculously cured of life-threatening illnesses.

And I'm still confident on the basis of what we do know that we have no case to answer on the substantive charges.

And champagne gets me very pissed and is the only drink that gives me a hangover. So can I have red wine please?
Click to expand...
I'd go for a cheeky Burgundy. I believe that a half dozen 1945 Domaine de la Romanée-Conti, Romanée-Conti Grand Cru would be a nice gargle.
 
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