PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

StillBluessinceHydeRoad said:
I think it's easy to get this disagreement between two of our most respected contributors completely out of perspective. Whatever their views on the release of the findings of the IC their is complete agreement that the PL will find it impossible to prove their most serious charges. And they come from different starting points: Pb is an accountant and Stefan a lawyer.
Click to expand...

Pb is easily lead, though.
 
rice10 said:
Please correct me if I’m wrong but also wasn’t there a court case to keep the whole thing on the QT that both the PL and we wanted but lost the case. Does this not mean that a result will need to be pretty transparent as much as we and the PL may want to keep things in house about whatever parts.
Click to expand...

Yes, there was, and the court decided it was in the public interest that this should not be done in private.

From what I have read, the panel also have a duty to publish the result promptly after delivering it. By their own process. They give the parties sight of it first, but this is a matter of days, not months.

So all these theories that both parties are sitting on the result, or conducting damage control in the background, appealing it on secret, or managing the fallout to their combied satisfaction, are imho just not possible. Because they would ultimately be effectively unlawful.
 
AlexWilliamsGloves said:
I thought the non-cooperation stuff was related to the previous debacle that was already dealt with....no?
Click to expand...
Honestly that's better answered by someone more knowledgeable than myself. I just find it weird people saying we're guilty at the least of non co operation and my understanding was we co operated, and co operated and co operated and then said nah it's taking the piss now. Ask for everything and that's it....and they came back and just kept asking for random scraps of paper lol
 
halfcenturyup said:
Nothing personal, but I don't really care about Chelsea - their sanction, imho, was a fudge and not the greatest moment in PL history. As clear a case you could ever see of negotiating a settlement and then justifying it with mitigations that don't make a lot of sense. Surprised the disciplinary panel let them get away with it, to be honest. Still, it's done. I have no great desire to discuss it further.

My only point was that the PL admits, in what I think is legal terminology, that they would have been unable to prove their allegations - on the balance of probabilities - due to their inability to access Abramovic's information in the same way they will be unable to prove their most serious allegations against City due to their inability to access information from Mansour and Etihad. Unless they are saying admissions of guilt are less persuasive than interpretations of documents that are contradicted by i) witness testimony and statements and ii) financial information selectively chosen by Mansour and Etihad.

Of course, it's possible that the club left some particularly incriminating evidence on their servers - let's be honest, they don't seem to be good at controlling sensitive information. But the chances of that must be ridiculously low.
Click to expand...
The difference in terms of RA and Mansor is simply the fact that RA isn’t/ wasn’t post the sale under the jurisdiction of the PL , Mansor as city owner is.
 
lyonfish said:
I think PB and SB just like arguing about whether the club knows the verdict or not, I think myself they might both be sort of right. The club knows full well if they did anything wrong or not, they also know the PL's case and the evidence put forward, it's quite possible they are as certain as it's possible to be that the club will be cleared of all charges, but no verdict has been communicated at all, not even behind closed doors. Why is it taking so long then? well my speculation is that the panel have been constrained by the charges to forensically comb through the entirety of City's accounts, I'm also wondering if the case has essentially flipped, with the panel in effect investigating the PL's decision to bring the charges in the first place. I think it was more than a bit mad of the PL to bring so many charges in one go, that alone tells you they don't know what they're doing.
Click to expand...
We are all in the dark as to what evidence was produced and by whom. If city went after some names in football and provided evidence of wrongdoing then that might have to be carefully considered or at least dealt with in the judgment even though it might not be directly related to what city did or did not do. It will all become clear. Soon hopefully
 
bellsouth said:
Yes of course we would. Or rather, as we don’t know the verdict we simply have to carry on as normal - it’s taken already so long what were supposed to do, just not buy anyone for the last few seasons? We carry on until a verdict is known and the deal with it then. Same goes for new stand and any other major financial commitments
Click to expand...
Not so sure. I suspect there’d be a 115 related get out clause in his contract that would release him and we’d owe Forrest 100m. The investment in the club is a sign of confidence in what we think the outcome will be I’m certain of that. But in litigation there is always risk that you don’t get the outcome you think is justified
 
terraloon said:
The difference in terms of RA and Mansor is simply the fact that RA isn’t/ wasn’t post the sale under the jurisdiction of the PL , Mansor as city owner is.
Click to expand...

what is your view on the fact chelsea cheated on 75 counts?

i'm not asking for your view on any mitigation you think you have for owning up (although as i understand it you had been rumbled anyway).

i'm asking if you accept wrongdoing by chelsea.
 
Lord Blue said:
what is your view on the fact chelsea cheated on 75 counts?

i'm not asking for your view on any mitigation you think you have for owning up (although as i understand it you had been rumbled anyway).

i'm asking if you accept wrongdoing by chelsea.
Click to expand...
Be prepared for reverse bleepers and fingers in ears.
 
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