PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Prestwich_Blue said:
If we make an assumption that Lewis & Levy both resigned because of something that came out of our hearing then doesn't that suggest that something has been going on behind the scenes, and that we 'know' the outcome in broad terms?

Let's also assume our discovery process showed that Masters acted under pressure from certain clubs. That they went with just the paper-thin evidence that UEFA had, rather than because they had comprehensive evidence of guilt. That some clubs hadn't acted towards us in the utmost good faith required by PL rules.

I can't imagine we'd stand by and let bygones be bygones. We'd want blood. And I think this is maybe why the outcome has been delayed, to manage the fall-out.
Click to expand...
The aftermath is going to be a bloodbath whatever happens. I have no idea about Levy and Lewis but it is a fact they were both bitter enemies of City so their departure was good news. Managing the fall-out will be as hard as the case itself. Even if no parties have seen the ruling yet there must be huge preparations under way for the fall-out.
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
The aftermath is going to be a bloodbath whatever happens. I have no idea about Levy and Lewis but it is a fact they were both bitter enemies of City so their departure was good news. Managing the fall-out will be as hard as the case itself. Even if no parties have seen the ruling yet there must be huge preparations under way for the fall-out.
Click to expand...
There will definitely be protocols in place for any foreseeable eventuality.
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
The aftermath is going to be a bloodbath whatever happens. I have no idea about Levy and Lewis but it is a fact they were both bitter enemies of City so their departure was good news. Managing the fall-out will be as hard as the case itself. Even if no parties have seen the ruling yet there must be huge preparations under way for the fall-out.
Click to expand...
Which brings me back to my original speculation. The only facts we know are (a) Levy & Lewis have left their respective roles at Spurs & Arsenal, (b) it seems they were our enemies, and (c) we still don't formally know the outcome of the hearing.

We might therefore assume/speculate/hypothesise/guess/jump to a conclusion, warranted or unwarranted, that something occurred either within the hearing itself, or in the aftermath of it, to warrant those actions. Or we could assume/speculate/hypothesise/guess/jump to a conclusion that one or both were entirely unrelated.

I think I've covered all the bases there.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
If we make an assumption that Lewis & Levy both resigned because of something that came out of our hearing then doesn't that suggest that something has been going on behind the scenes, and that we 'know' the outcome in broad terms?

Let's also assume our discovery process showed that Masters acted under pressure from certain clubs. That they went with just the paper-thin evidence that UEFA had, rather than because they had comprehensive evidence of guilt. That some clubs hadn't acted towards us in the utmost good faith required by PL rules.

I can't imagine we'd stand by and let bygones be bygones. We'd want blood. And I think this is maybe why the outcome has been delayed, to manage the fall-out.
Click to expand...
Although that does require some assumptions PB, I really hope it’s true !
We’ll find out soon I trust.
 
slbsn said:
Correcting fiction is not pointless. On the contrary.
Click to expand...
Do you know for sure that the departures of Levy & Lewis were unrelated to our case?

You've also been claiming the result is "imminent" since June last year. You posted this on June 17th...
slbsn said:
Really no idea how that was your take away. I think the liability decision is imminent and literally say that in the substack. When imminent is, who knows. This week, next week?

View attachment 160360
Click to expand...
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Not correcting you. Genuinely wondered if there were any grounds for a super injunction that I wasn’t aware of.

Yes Donahue & Stevenson. The foundation stone for claims for negligence: duty of care, breach of duty, causation, reasonable foreseeability and losses. Think that covers everything!
Click to expand...
I'm correcting you. It's Donoghue.
 
Vester said:
You seem to have an extremely high trust that highly educated and experienced people are infallible when making legal judgements of evidence. I do not have that same unlimited trust that we are undoubtedly getting a fair unbiased and correct judgement from this panel (but I hope we do).

I trust Khaldoon and the club, I do not necessarily have the same high trust that a PL "independent" panel will deliver an unbiased verdict while laughing of all the immense widespread public pressure to deliver a guilty verdict (but hopefully they will!).

Meaning I will believe the club is innocent almost regardless of what the verdict will be in this matter. Simply a guilty verdict would not be enough for me to think we are actually guilty, it would have to be something completely shocking and undeniable evidence to convince me of us being guilty.
Click to expand...
U must be a real beacon of light and fun at parties!!!!
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
Which brings me back to my original speculation. The only facts we know are (a) Levy & Lewis have left their respective roles at Spurs & Arsenal, (b) it seems they were our enemies, and (c) we still don't formally know the outcome of the hearing.

We might therefore assume/speculate/hypothesise/guess/jump to a conclusion, warranted or unwarranted, that something occurred either within the hearing itself, or in the aftermath of it, to warrant those actions. Or we could assume/speculate/hypothesise/guess/jump to a conclusion that one or both were entirely unrelated.

I think I've covered all the bases there.
Click to expand...
evidence of an anti-arab cabal could also be "problematic". It's not even "any other business" atmo, but that is to be expected, as secrecy would have to be maintained at all costs by whatever means, nothing written down, just face-to-face. Circumstantial evidence can be swerved with a politician's standby of "plausible deniability"; and that's if a cabal even exits...
 
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