PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

cheekybids said:
It’s the hope that will kill you Keith…..
Click to expand...

Unless I misunderstood, and that is certainly possible, @slbsn didn't even say any of that.

He originally stated the provisions of the Limitation Act would apply because the whole process was governed by English law. I don't think he ever said any of the allegations would be time limited. It depends on their nature and we don't really know enough about them.

He has since moved to the PL possibly trying to avoid limitation by using the "disciplinary process" argument but he set out what the club's likely response would be. And I, for one, can't imagine the club accepting such an approach on questions of fraud without causing a huge stink (this is where we started this bizarre series of posts). As there is no sign of a huge stink, I can only assume this was dealt with appropriately. The club is never backwards at coming forwards on things like this.

And as he says, it doesn't really matter in terms of the hearing about the Limitation Act. All allegations would have to be heard and assessed anyway to see if any of the exemptions from limitation apply. It's not like at CAS where they didn't even have to formally consider the time-barred charges.

So I am still sticking with the assumption that these allegations will be subject to the provisions of the Limitation Act, one way or another. And that it doesn't really matter anyway.

He is welcome to pop back in and tell me I am talking bollocks if (as is very likely) I am :)
 
Keith Moon said:
You obviously hold auditors in higher regard than I do. If there are publicly available court documents showing Sheikh Mansour’s close involvement in IPIC, and official Aabar documents confirming that he played an active role in Aabar’s business, how do City’s auditors justify the view that he had no significant influence?
Click to expand...
You are clutching more straws than worzel gummidge having a wank.
 
Keith Moon said:
You obviously hold auditors in higher regard than I do. If there are publicly available court documents showing Sheikh Mansour’s close involvement in IPIC, and official Aabar documents confirming that he played an active role in Aabar’s business, how do City’s auditors justify the view that he had no significant influence?
Click to expand...
Mansour is declared in our accounts to be a person of influence. That does not automatically mean that he significantly influenced the events being assessed by the panel.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Unless I misunderstood, and that is certainly possible, @slbsn didn't even say any of that.

He originally stated the provisions of the Limitation Act would apply because the whole process was governed by English law. I don't think he ever said any of the allegations would be time limited. It depends on their nature and we don't really know enough about them.

He has since moved to the PL possibly trying to avoid limitation by using the "disciplinary process" argument but he set out what the club's likely response would be. And I, for one, can't imagine the club accepting such an approach on questions of fraud without causing a huge stink (this is where we started this bizarre series of posts). As there is no sign of a huge stink, I can only assume this was dealt with appropriately. The club is never backwards at coming forwards on things like this.

And as he says, it doesn't really matter in terms of the hearing about the Limitation Act. All allegations would have to be heard and assessed anyway to see if any of the exemptions from limitation apply. It's not like at CAS where they didn't even have to formally consider the time-barred charges.

So I am still sticking with the assumption that these allegations will be subject to the provisions of the Limitation Act, one way or another. And that it doesn't really matter anyway.

He is welcome to pop back in and tell me I am talking bollocks if (as is very likely) I am :)
Click to expand...
I wish you would stop calling yourself a stupid accountant that talks bollocks as you very clearly aren't. (well I'll give you the accountant bit). :-)
 
Saddleworth2 said:
I wish you would stop calling yourself a stupid accountant that talks bollocks as you very clearly aren't. (well I'll give you the accountant bit). :-)
Click to expand...
Yes, I have to agree with this. You don't need to apologise or caviat every single post at the end, @halfcenturyup . It's very polite and British and that but not necessary, especially considering the bollocks that does get talked on this subject.
 
manimanc said:
I've had my suspicions all along it was a wum and definitely not a city fan and it is the same repeated ramblings that fruit loop Harris spews out.
Click to expand...
He's been on my ignore list for quite a while, at least 12 months I think from some sort of chatted bollocks.

Having had a quick look at some of his posts in this thread recently he's without doubt posting with an agenda....best to not feed him.
 
Chris in London said:
Whatever he has seen, it isn’t in the public domain. So somebody has shown him something confidential. And if they have access to some confidential material it seems likely they have access to a lot more.

Three questions arise

(A) is that confidential material likely to have come from city?

(B) if not, who (with access to that confidential material) did show it him, and

(C) whoever leaked this material, what do they have to gain by leaking that particular confidential material (but not anything else) to a figure with a known public platform?
Click to expand...
Its a pretty vague statement from Maguire & is open to interpretation. After the way that Delaney & is ilk went after Rabin on twitter, surely if he KM had seen confidental documents that they wouldn't have been leaked by the cartel controlled media
 
blue b4 the moon said:
He's been on my ignore list for quite a while, at least 12 months I think from some sort of chatted bollocks.

Having had a quick look at some of his posts in this thread recently he's without doubt posting with an agenda....best to not feed him.
Click to expand...
I've got him on ignore.
I thought it was just me and was expecting another thread ban for calling him out but I'm glad others think the same.
 
KS55 said:
Mansour is declared in our accounts to be a person of influence. That does not automatically mean that he significantly influenced the events being assessed by the panel.
Click to expand...
True. And as Chris has explained so clearly, for the Premier League to succeed on that point it would need to show that City acted in bad faith. On the evidence we’re aware of, that is more or less impossible. So unless the Premier League has materially stronger evidence than what is currently in the public domain, we probably don’t need to be too concerned about what is, on paper, the weakest link in City’s legal defence.
 
manimanc said:
I've got him on ignore.
I thought it was just me and was expecting another thread ban for calling him out but I'm glad others think the same.
Click to expand...

He started posting on this thread just at the point the other wummer stopped posting, just saying.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Unless I misunderstood, and that is certainly possible, @slbsn didn't even say any of that.

He originally stated the provisions of the Limitation Act would apply because the whole process was governed by English law. I don't think he ever said any of the allegations would be time limited. It depends on their nature and we don't really know enough about them.

He has since moved to the PL possibly trying to avoid limitation by using the "disciplinary process" argument but he set out what the club's likely response would be. And I, for one, can't imagine the club accepting such an approach on questions of fraud without causing a huge stink (this is where we started this bizarre series of posts). As there is no sign of a huge stink, I can only assume this was dealt with appropriately. The club is never backwards at coming forwards on things like this.

And as he says, it doesn't really matter in terms of the hearing about the Limitation Act. All allegations would have to be heard and assessed anyway to see if any of the exemptions from limitation apply. It's not like at CAS where they didn't even have to formally consider the time-barred charges.

So I am still sticking with the assumption that these allegations will be subject to the provisions of the Limitation Act, one way or another. And that it doesn't really matter anyway.

He is welcome to pop back in and tell me I am talking bollocks if (as is very likely) I am :)
Click to expand...
Stefan asked me to pass on that he thinks you're talking bollocks again.

Don't shoot the messenger...
 
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