PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Paddy Power rip the piss out of absolutely all of the big clubs, and do so mercilessly. I think it's hilarious tbh.

For example they have already paid out on Celtic winning the league and robbing the rangers fans in Scotland.

It's what they do.

Don't take anything they say as malicious, city-focused, indicative of the result or anything other than a drive to get clicks, punters and brand awareness. It will be the rags when they lose their first game, arsenal the same etc etc. Stop being so precious ffs
 
slbsn said:
The way cases like this work, there would be no big surprises. The PL will have been well aware of the scale and quality of City’s legal team, the arguments articulated in detail in correspondence before the “trial” and witness statements set out and swapped weeks before kick off. Then written openings swapped in the week or so before. So I’d say there was almost no chance of anyone being taken aback.
Click to expand...
The notion of a written opening being exchanged seems to me, to be totally contrary to the core principles of advocacy. Or at least advocacy as I understand it. In fact if it’s been exchanged in writing then what’s the point in articulating it to the tribunal at all, given they have read it?
 
slbsn said:
Patel wrote one of the worst analyses of the Everton case before the appeal I’ve seen. It was totally wrong.

The way cases like this work, there would be no big surprises. The PL will have been well aware of the scale and quality of City’s legal team, the arguments articulated in detail in correspondence before the “trial” and witness statements set out and swapped weeks before kick off. Then written openings swapped in the week or so before. So I’d say there was almost no chance of anyone being taken aback.
Click to expand...
They could have been taken aback when they first heard or saw the strength of our defensive arguments during the “arguments articulated in detail in correspondence before the trial”. Obviously not once the consideration of evidence began.
 
TheGhost said:
I know the square root of fuck all and don’t pretend to know otherwise.

Couldn’t the Premier League have been “taken aback” or surprised by breadth and counter claims in City’s rebuttal. Rather than just defending the claims in the charges could City have gone on the offensive (potentially using evidence from the APT cases), accusing the Premier League and certain clubs of colluding and providing in depth evidence of this, which calls into question the rules that City are accused of breaking, which in turn the panel then needs to review.

Could this be what’s taking so long? Or will the panel only look at evidence directly related to the charges and not the ‘bigger picture’?

Also if the collusion was proved would the panel have authority to tell the Premier League to potentially charge other clubs if if it’s clear that they have broken Premier League rules? I know this is a huge can of worms that could be opened.
Click to expand...
To be honest, not really
 
domalino said:
Last I saw, the Premier League brought more lawyers and more KCs to the tribunal so that's just not going to fly really.

Similarly when the costs become public, it will be impossible to argue one side had much better lawyers unless there's a massive discrepancy in the legal costs of either side.
Click to expand...
I can almost guarantee that our costs will be double the PL's.


We pay win bonuses :)
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
The notion of a written opening being exchanged seems to me, to be totally contrary to the core principles of advocacy. Or at least advocacy as I understand it. In fact if it’s been exchanged in writing then what’s the point in articulating it to the tribunal at all, given they have read it?
Click to expand...
This is how the process works in quasi commercial proceedings of this type and this case. And of course there is also full exchanges of the complaint and the response. There will have e been full written openings with bundle references and written witness evidence followed by cross examination. Then written closings. All part of the advocacy. All especially necessary is such a complex case.

example here in the Everton case:

1755266190559.png
 

Attachments

  • 1755266667354.png
    1755266667354.png
    133.4 KB · Views: 89
Last edited:
gordondaviesmoustache said:
The notion of a written opening being exchanged seems to me, to be totally contrary to the core principles of advocacy. Or at least advocacy as I understand it. In fact if it’s been exchanged in writing then what’s the point in articulating it to the tribunal at all, given they have read it?
Click to expand...
I thought advance disclosure of evidence is routine in most forms of legal hearings including civil and criminal cases. They wouldn’t swap tactics in advance of course.
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
I thought advance disclosure of evidence is routine in most forms of legal hearings including civil and criminal cases. They wouldn’t swap tactics in advance of course.
Click to expand...
They swap their entire case and defence. Obviously the hearing itself unfolds against that backdrop but the basis of complaint and response to that complaint are not a secret before a hearing commences.
 
slbsn said:
This is how the process works in quasi commercial proceedings of this type and this case. And of course there is also full exchanges of the complaint and the response. There will have e been full written openings with bundle references and written witness evidence followed by cross examination. Then written closings. All part of the advocacy. All especially necessary is such a complex case.

example here in the Everton case:

View attachment 166115
Click to expand...
I’m broadly aware of all that; I repeat, it isn’t advocacy as I view it to submit your submissions or opening (which I guess is a quasi submission) to the tribunal of fact in writing, other than a skeleton.

I understand the administrative, procedural and practical reasons for it, and I’m not seeking to denigrate the legal ability of those who are required to practise in that way, I’m simply commenting that to me it’s akin to painting by numbers when it comes to the skill of being an advocate.

I’m sure the fees those boys and girls command will soften the blow of such an analysis...
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
I’m broadly aware of all that; I repeat, it isn’t advocacy as I view it to submit your submissions or opening (which I guess is a quasi submission) to the tribunal of fact in writing, other than a skeleton.

I understand the administrative, procedural and practical reasons for it, and I’m not seeking to denigrate the legal ability of those who are required to practise in that way, I’m simply commenting that to me it’s akin to painting by numbers when it comes to the skill of being an advocate.

I’m sure the fees those boys and girls command will soften the blow of such an analysis...
Click to expand...
I think to boil down a case of this complexity to the relatively brief amount of oral advocacy would be sub optimal. Written advocacy is just as important as oral advocacy outside of Hollywood IMO. Surely it’s important to get the facts in play rather than a case to be judged on the oral eloquence of the best barrister. That said it can mean some judges pre-decide a case before anyone steps inside a trial or hearing which I have had too.
 
slbsn said:
I think to boil down a case of this complexity to the relatively brief amount of oral advocacy would be sub optimal. Written advocacy is just as important as oral advocacy outside of Hollywood IMO. Surely it’s important to get the facts in play rather than a case to be judged on the oral eloquence of the best barrister. That said it can mean some judges pre-decide a case before anyone steps inside a trial or hearing which I have had too.
Click to expand...
My head is hurting. It’s 36 degs here in southern spain and not being educated in the finer points of the law World I’m imbibing copious amounts of liquid instilled with alcohol to deaden my headache.
 
slbsn said:
I think to boil down a case of this complexity to the relatively brief amount of oral advocacy would be sub optimal. Written advocacy is just as important as oral advocacy outside of Hollywood IMO. Surely it’s important to get the facts in play rather than a case to be judged on the oral eloquence of the best barrister. That said it can mean some judges pre-decide a case before anyone steps inside a trial or hearing which I have had too.
Click to expand...
I accept written advocacy has an important role (eg skeletons) and I’d also agree that a hearing of that complexity deviating from the MO you’ve described is going to be suboptimal, and quite frankly an oral opening will have a nugatory impact on the outcome of proceedings like that in any event.

It was a wider observation specifically in relation to an opening, and by extension, a closing to which I was musing.

I think that format, where everything is reduced to writing without any capacity for oral submissions that aren’t foreshadowed by a written document, is much more exposed to risk of being superseded by AI than one where ex tempore oral submissions are routinely made.

If there is no real human, oral, persuasive input to the outcome of a hearing then eventually the role of a human advocate will ultimately become redundant, surely?
 
Eoiyflem said:
Paddy Power rip the piss out of absolutely all of the big clubs, and do so mercilessly. I think it's hilarious tbh.

For example they have already paid out on Celtic winning the league and robbing the rangers fans in Scotland.

It's what they do.

Don't take anything they say as malicious, city-focused, indicative of the result or anything other than a drive to get clicks, punters and brand awareness. It will be the rags when they lose their first game, arsenal the same etc etc. Stop being so precious ffs
Click to expand...
i remember 2012 when he paid out on utd winning prem, about 6 games to go, had his pants down
 
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