PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Prestwich_Blue said:
I could be wrong but I find it difficult to believe that they'll write up all the proceedings completely dispassionately then say, "Right, what do we think? Proven or not proven?" for every single instance.

It's more likely they'll have pretty well made their minds up by the end of the hearing in most cases. There may be some debates about levels of proof, or the weight of some of the evidence and going back to the evidence presented, but there are only 3 substantive charges, plus the issue of non-cooperation, so it should be pretty clear to them whether the PL has made its case to a sufficient level of cogency by the end of the hearing.

I've had a second source unconnected to my original source tell me that the broad outcome was clear 6 months ago, even if the formal verdict wasn't. Is the delay due to attempts at damage limitation? Are the departures of Levy & Lewis connected or coincidental?

We'll find out soon hopefully.
Click to expand...
My worry is that the write ups are there simply to justify their decision that is anything that they think of afterwards risks being ignored if the made decision is threatened.
Would be much more happy if the write ups contained all views so that a decision could then be made.
 
KS55 said:
So you really think the judges have been bribed? Your talking about a fantasy of your own making.
Click to expand...
Oh dear, let me try to help you understand what is going on in the real world.
Not talking about the judges, you did, im talking about the lovely CEO's at certain clubs.
If you think it's a fantasy that certain people at certain clubs haven't acted in good faith towards our clubs ,then that's up to you
 
BAB.DAB said:
Oh dear, let me try to help you understand what is going on in the real world.
Not talking about the judges, you did, im talking about the lovely CEO's at certain clubs.
If you think it's a fantasy that certain people at certain clubs haven't acted in good faith towards our clubs ,then that's up to you
Click to expand...
Commercially/contractually there’s no mandate for people to act in good faith, it’s not a principle recognised by the courts of England and Wales.
 
theholysmurf said:
Commercially/contractually there’s no mandate for people to act in good faith, it’s not a principle recognised by the courts of England and Wales.
Click to expand...
it is part of the principles of the pl tho and its their rules we are being charged under, that being said tho acting in good faith is largely irrelevant in this case as the numbers will be the proof, they say our numbers are false and they have to prove that and i dont think they have a prayer of that.
 
mancboy said:
it is part of the principles of the pl tho and its their rules we are being charged under, that being said tho acting in good faith is largely irrelevant in this case as the numbers will be the proof, they say our numbers are false and they have to prove that and i dont think they have a prayer of that.
Click to expand...
Wondering if Daniel and Tim acted in good faith
 
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