PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

slbsn said:
Yes I know for sure re Levy. As for Lewis, it would be totally ridiculous for him to be booted out of Arsenal (with the offer of a NED position) for being too aggressive towards Arsenal's nemesis months before a decision even if was totally unjustified. It is just a totally illogical explanation.

As for the gotcha, which bit of "if I had to guess" didn't you understand last year? 6 months was ample time for a decision in a case even of this complexity. 18 months is heading, as i have said, into unsafe territory. All statements about imminence have been properly qualified - "guess" "nobody knows" and were based on indications from senior sources from people involved in the case. At no point have I suggested I KNOW when the decision is coming. Only when it has not come.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the information about Levy. He'd clearly run his course at Spurs so I'd accept that. Who knows with Lewis. As I said, it was pure speculation on my part.

And I also accept your sources genuinely thought the outcome was "imminent". The only thing I'd say is that if there was a belief that the result was imminent last year, be that March, June or whenever, there must have been some indication of some sort among one or both of the parties that the panel had reached and documented a decision, or was close to doing so at that point. Of course that might also have been someone adding 2 and 2 and getting 5.

I don't think anyone would disagree that this has taken far too long, seemingly in contravention of Rule W.52 (albeit that's very much dependent on the definition of "...as soon as practicable..."). It's looking less likely that we'll get an outcome before the World Cup now unless it drops early next week. But I think we'd have heard some noise in that case.
 
Chris in London said:
Not quite.

Lots of people have said that the charges would be difficult to sustain, especially the most serious ones, but with the caveat that we don’t know what evidence the PL are relying on.

Khaldoon DOES know what evidence they are relying on, and he has access to some of the best legal brains in the country. They will have reported in great detail on how the trial went. So our chairman is in an infinitely better position to be confident about the outcome than almost anyone else.

But until the decision is announced, that’s all it can be.
Click to expand...

At the end of a hearing would they have summarised what had been heard for instance or does it just end with we’ll be in touch.

I just imagine you’d say we’ve heard a lot, some very concerning evidence of x & clear evidence of y or some unethical behaviour etc etc
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
Thanks for the information about Levy. He'd clearly run his course at Spurs so I'd accept that. Who knows with Lewis. As I said, it was pure speculation on my part.

And I also accept your sources genuinely thought the outcome was "imminent". The only thing I'd say is that if there was a belief that the result was imminent last year, be that March, June or whenever, there must have been some indication of some sort among one or both of the parties that the panel had reached and documented a decision, or was close to doing so at that point. Of course that might also have been someone adding 2 and 2 and getting 5.

I don't think anyone would disagree that this has taken far too long, seemingly in contravention of Rule W.52 (albeit that's very much dependent on the definition of "...as soon as practicable..."). It's looking less likely that we'll get an outcome before the World Cup now unless it drops early next week. But I think we'd have heard some noise in that case.
Click to expand...
I never said the result was imminent before June AFAIK - in fact I strongly advised caution on any of the stories that it was coming quickly. The parties have never had anything from the panel as to when to expect the decision - they are in the dark. As Pannick said on one of his emails - he was not lying. Even now they do not know (clearly can change on any day but that was the case in the last few days). This is not one source.

The view of the parties last year was based on experience and other informal signals although, as was in The Lawyer, they learned that one of the panel was busy on at least one major trial in 2025 (From The Lawyer: "They will certainly be working on more than one matter at once, and The Lawyer is aware that one of the judges has acted as a barrister in at least one trial since the City hearing wrapped up."). Decisions are not meant to take 19 months - it is as simple as that.

It is not a breach of W.52 because it is out of the hands of the PL - they don't have a decision so there is nothing they can do and nothing to announce.
 
domalino said:
Those are some absolutely massive assumptions with no evidence behind them.
Click to expand...

The case & smear campaign has been based on massive assumptions, there is a basis for these assumptions with letters, statements in the media, pep calling levy out, APT collusion but it could all be coincidental.

I’m firmly in the PB camp that it all comes from lobbying & discovery will prove it.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Just out of interest, why would the panel members put themselves in a position that this becomes an issue? They must surely have seen it coming?
Click to expand...
Why does any tribunal? Sometimes it happens, sometimes a case is super complex, sometimes they can't find the time to settle the decision. They wouldn't accept the decision is unsafe, it is just a risk for them at this stage. I stress, it is not going to be an easy argument to run.
 
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