PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

LeonardoDaVnci said:
Standard Chartered, the highly controversial sponsor of LFC, is once again embroiled in a terrorism-related scandal. How long will it be before the Premier League and the The Football Association investigate this questionable commercial arrangement, in line with their corporate governance obligations?

Click to expand...

Surely the pl will not want to be linked to this ?
Oh wait its one of the cartel clubs they cant be sponsored by money laundering banks and also countries like Rwanda with horrendous human rights.
 
halfcenturyup said:
I'm struggling with this idea of huge amounts of evidence, tbh, at least from the PL's side, and the overly complicated nature of the case.

In a nutshell, the PL is accusing the club of fraud. They have to provide cogent and direct evidence of fraudulent behaviour. They won't have any. Even if such fraudulent behaviour did take place, which I very much doubt, the sort of evidence they need will be tucked away where they can't get at it. They can supply all the email discussions and circumstantial evidence they like to support their case but, like at CAS, that won't stand up in front of the witness evidence the club will present and the direct evidence from AD that the club chooses to present at the hearing.

I just don't see how the panel's as analysis would take longer than last summer, which leads me to think something else is going on that we don't know about. I don't think it's unreasonable to think that at this stage.

I am talking the most serious allegations here. I am less convinced, and less worried, by things like ownership, related parties and some of the "smaller" allegations. We aren't getting relegated for those, so I don't care.

What is this thing going on that is so important that it is "delaying" the judgment? I don't know, but I have some ideas. In any case, it will most likely be bad for the PL and not for the club, imho.
Click to expand...




https://giphy.com/gifs/season-5-the-simpsons-5x20-3orifg31w2MOgZBTgs

-:)
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Reason Sol got a foothold in the UK market ahead of Corona (which was always a bigger brand globally, and in Mexico) was because of copyright issues because of the soft drink on the same name (which I think was a Britvic product) which took years to resolve in the early ‘90s.
Click to expand...

That takes me back. I remember Corona pop deliveries in the early 80s. Dandelion and burdock being the choice of champions.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
No legal tribunal worth its salt is going to paint themselves into a corner like that. Unlike people in a commercial settling, who are answerable to directors, shareholders and line managers the panel here are in control of the timetable and answerable to no one in that forum - if they were not, then chaos would ensue.

So if they don’t need to produce a schedule as you’ve provided, why would they tie their hands like that?

You can sometimes get an indication when the decision might be forthcoming, but nothing as remotely particularised as you’ve set out.
Click to expand...
Understood.

As you note, they clearly haven't been backed into a corner in terms of timescale. I think the length of time since the hearing, without so much as a peep tells us that.

But does that automatically mean there’s no schedule at all? Surely the panel has to work to some sort of a timetable. A schedule could have some degree of fluidity and shift if the assumptions change, evidence needs to be revisited, or the panel members’ availability changes. The point of a schedule wouldn't be to lock them in, but moreover to have an agreed a baseline for delivery in a reasonable timeframe, unless something changes.

In the regulations there is a requirement to release the outcomes "as soon as practicable" after the hearing. My uninformed assumption would be that this means as soon as something can reasonably be done in the real world, taking into account the circumstances, but not simply whenever the panel gets round to it.
 
HorlockofFiretopMountain said:
Understood.

As you note, they clearly haven't been backed into a corner in terms of timescale. I think the length of time since the hearing, without so much as a peep tells us that.

But does that automatically mean there’s no schedule at all? Surely the panel has to work to some sort of a timetable. A schedule could have some degree of fluidity and shift if the assumptions change, evidence needs to be revisited, or the panel members’ availability changes. The point of a schedule wouldn't be to lock them in, but moreover to have an agreed a baseline for delivery in a reasonable timeframe, unless something changes.

In the regulations there is a requirement to release the outcomes "as soon as practicable" after the hearing. My uninformed assumption would be that this means as soon as something can reasonably be done in the real world, taking into account the circumstances, but not simply whenever the panel gets round to it.
Click to expand...
As @Chris in London previously alluded members of the judiciary (and by extension members of this panel) can be subject to censure if there are unwarranted delays but “as soon as practicable” is deliberately widely worded to afford the panel wide discretion when making (and writing up) their determination.

The members of the panel will, post hearing, unquestionably align their diaries, and divvy the work of writing the decision up between them, which provides a schedule of sorts, but the timetable will be theirs, and theirs alone to set. This independence is important to maintain their impartiality without undue pressure from outside sources and to ensure that their decision is as appeal proof as possible. And with a panel of three there will be lots of moving parts.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Reason Sol got a foothold in the UK market ahead of Corona (which was always a bigger brand globally, and in Mexico) was because of copyright issues because of the soft drink on the same name (which I think was a Britvic product) which took years to resolve in the early ‘90s.
Click to expand...
Is that a soft sign we're innocent, I'll take anything ;)
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
No legal tribunal worth its salt is going to paint themselves into a corner like that. Unlike people in a commercial settling, who are answerable to directors, shareholders and line managers the panel here are in control of the timetable and answerable to no one in that forum - if they were not, then chaos would ensue.

So if they don’t need to produce a schedule as you’ve provided, why would they tie their hands like that?

You can sometimes get an indication when the decision might be forthcoming, but nothing as remotely particularised as you’ve set out.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that understandable reply.

Presumably, does this mean they can stop their non existent timetable, consult with timetable dependant PL and City and ask them to give a preference date for their decision with or without telling them of their decision?
 
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