PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[cheekybids]

Usually just “you’ve given us a lot to think about, we will let you have our decision as soon as we can”

Sounds like a few interviews I had years ago…… & still waiting to hear ;)

 

[Stoned Rose]

What if he is 'wrong'?

What if it is a matter of interpretation, and what he KNOWS that City have done nothing wrong is within his/their interpretation of the rules and accounting practice.

Till the verdict is out, and we are officially cleared, the confidence is just confidence mate. I love seeing it as much as the next blue, but I still await the verdict. Hence while we all keep coming back to this thread.

I disagree mate. Khaldoon is about as much of an expert with money and accounting as you can get. Get on @Damocles recent posts for the level of deals he makes and high rollers he deals with.

If a man of his standing is that bullish and relaxed he’s declaring a “wonderful sit down” post verdict, that’s more than confidence.

 

[Coatigan]

I disagree mate. Khaldoon is about as much of an expert with money and accounting as you can get. Get on @Damocles recent posts for the level of deals he makes and high rollers he deals with.

If a man of his standing is that bullish and relaxed he’s declaring a “wonderful sit down” post verdict, that’s more than confidence.

That's fair, but not what your post I replied to said.

I think people are reading too much into what 'wonderful' means too, while I am at it.

I'd stoll much rather see the confidence than not, obviously.

 

[mancboy]

That's fair, but not what your post I replied to said.

I think people are reading too much into what 'wonderful' means too, while I am at it.

I'd stoll much rather see the confidence than not, obviously.

Ive said before that khaldoon is far to savvy to throw out unnecessary words, he knows every word he utters will be analysed to the hilt so hes sending a message.

 

[heslops barnet]

Ive said before that khaldoon is far to savvy to throw out unnecessary words, he knows every word he utters will be analysed to the hilt so hes sending a message.

We’re the most professional outfit in the PL…….with the best back room staff

 

[Coatigan]

Ive said before that khaldoon is far to savvy to throw out unnecessary words, he knows every word he utters will be analysed to the hilt so hes sending a message.

A wonderful sit-down, with a guy he sits down with every year, and has been promising another the last 3 years.

Look, I like it too. It's great to hear.

 

[Gesario]

We’re the most professional outfit in the PL…….with the best back room staff

^This

 

[halfcenturyup]

Ive said before that khaldoon is far to savvy to throw out unnecessary words, he knows every word he utters will be analysed to the hilt so hes sending a message.

And it was a scripted interview, it's not off-the-cuff. It's possible he changed "we'll sit down" to "we'll have a wonderful sit-down" spontaneously but that doesn't change the fact that the latter is purposely much more positive than the former. I used to write bullshit like that and I maintain it was a deliberate choice to give a deliberate message.

He chooses his words carefully. He has to in his role and, while a scripted interview with City has fewer global consequences than a meeting with Trump or Putin, of course, the mindset is the same, imho. It all affects reputation.

 

[johnny crossan]

A wonderful sit-down, with a guy he sits down with every year, and has been promising another the last 3 years.

Look, I like it too. It's great to hear.

'Wonderful' does not imply any sense of forboding, quite the reverse. Our chairman chooses his words carefully and it is perverse not to recognise he is clearly optimistic about the explanation we will be given when the ruling us announced.

 

[Ho Chi Man City]

I thought that was Noddy Holder

It was apocryphal, take your pick from any West Midlander, Noddy Holder though, great fella.

 

[Silva61]

I recognise that lawyers are always prone to caution when talking about cases, so let me take this and run with it for you.

About complexity, there was no-one saying this case was so complex it could take 18 months to get from the hearing to an initial liability judgment. There was talk of three or four years if the full process was to be taken into account - liability, appeal, sanction, appeal, possible arbitration. But it has been three and a half years since the allegations were referred and we still aren't at the liability phase yet.

No-one is disputing there would have been an enormous amount of evidence, but does that really make the allegations more complex?

There are, as far as we know, no complex legal issues to be determined here, no complicated precedents to be set. It's just a question of whether the PL's interpretations of certain emails and other documents is sufficient to prove the allegations or whether the club's counter-evidence is "irrefutable" enough for the panel to consider the PL's evidence to be insufficient.

I am still struggling with the idea of the case being so much more complex than even the most well-informed commentators were talking about a year ago.

On the other hand, I am reminded of the reported surprise in the Premier League and within certain clubs as to the aggressive nature of the club's defence. I find it hard to believe the PL didn't think the club would aggressively defend its position as a matter of routine, so is it unreasonable to suggest the club's defence has opened up some new battlefronts of which we are currently unaware, but which could explain just why the initial liability judgment is taking so long?

Either the panel members are not putting in the time required or as you say City have opened up a whole new can of worms.
What other explanation could there be. My guess is the PL are looking for a way out and City are having no of it.

 

[Ho Chi Man City]

I thought it was Davina McCall

How as she made a living from being shit at everything she does? Her and Clare Balding, more annoying than an insect bite on the scrotal sac.

 

[johnny crossan]

 

[slbsn]

I recognise that lawyers are always prone to caution when talking about cases, so let me take this and run with it for you.

About complexity, there was no-one saying this case was so complex it could take 18 months to get from the hearing to an initial liability judgment. There was talk of three or four years if the full process was to be taken into account - liability, appeal, sanction, appeal, possible arbitration. But it has been three and a half years since the allegations were referred and we still aren't at the liability phase yet.

No-one is disputing there would have been an enormous amount of evidence, but does that really make the allegations more complex?

There are, as far as we know, no complex legal issues to be determined here, no complicated precedents to be set. It's just a question of whether the PL's interpretations of certain emails and other documents is sufficient to prove the allegations or whether the club's counter-evidence is "irrefutable" enough for the panel to consider the PL's evidence to be insufficient.

I am still struggling with the idea of the case being so much more complex than even the most well-informed commentators were talking about a year ago.

On the other hand, I am reminded of the reported surprise in the Premier League and within certain clubs as to the aggressive nature of the club's defence. I find it hard to believe the PL didn't think the club would aggressively defend its position as a matter of routine, so is it unreasonable to suggest the club's defence has opened up some new battlefronts of which we are currently unaware, but which could explain just why the initial liability judgment is taking so long?

Nothing has changed about complexity and certainly I have not suggested it has. No decision should take 18 months regardless of complexity.

1. The case is very complex and yes enormous amounts of documentary and oral evidence absolutely makes allegations and the proof of them more complex.
2. No simple case has a barrister line up like this: Blackstone Chambers’ Adam Lewis KC, Andrew Hunter KC, Jason Pobjoy, Shane Sibbel, Tom Cleaver, Will Bordell, Emmeline Plews and Femi Adekoya v Monckton Chambers’ Paul Harris KC, Blackstone Chambers’ Lord Pannick KC, and Serle Court’s Philip Marshall KC and James Mather, and One Essex Court’s Nathaniel Bird

To try and suggest this case was not very complex is really quite strange at this point. It is just not debatable.

Nobody was surprised by the nature of the club's defence. Stories like this from someone like Delaney are just all rubbish. Everybody knows a defence team like City put up fights extremely hard. Litigation is confrontational, adversarial, aggressive and bitter. Especially when allegations of dishonesty and bad faith are in play. As for new battlefronts, they would have to be separate cases like APT which due to the distinctive and misaligned timelines do not impact the deliberations - the panel can't take in things that the parties haven't even pleaded as their position.

 

[Coatigan]

'Wonderful' does not imply any sense of forboding, quite the reverse. Our chairman chooses his words carefully and it is perverse not to recognise he is clearly optimistic about the explanation we will be given when the ruling us announced.

I fully recognise this. And am delighted with it too.

But I maintain that people are reading what they want to into it. Which they are entitled to. As am I.

 

[Stoned Rose]

That's fair, but not what your post I replied to said.

I think people are reading too much into what 'wonderful' means too, while I am at it.

I'd stoll much rather see the confidence than not, obviously.

We’ll have to disagree again mate. He’s chosen that word carefully and to let us blues know there is nothing to worry about.

 

[Coatigan]

We’ll have to disagree again mate. He’s chosen that word carefully and to let us blues know there is nothing to worry about.

I too think he has, of course he has, it wasn't accidental. He also is giving himself the platform ge has been promising for 3 years, because he hasn't yet been able to follow up on it. Each time, he has to make more of it because of the prolonged wait.

I just think some people are attributing even more to it than that though. I.e, for example that he suddenly 'knows' the outcome, vs having confidence, which he has for the last 3 years.

And I also think many will ultimately be disappointed. To be completely clear, by that I mean strictly by the content of that sit-down, whenever it comes, rather than necessary the outcome of the verdict.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Nothing has changed about complexity and certainly I have not suggested it has. No decision should take 18 months regardless of complexity.

1. The case is very complex and yes enormous amounts of documentary and oral evidence absolutely makes allegations and the proof of them more complex.
2. No simple case has a barrister line up like this: Blackstone Chambers’ Adam Lewis KC, Andrew Hunter KC, Jason Pobjoy, Shane Sibbel, Tom Cleaver, Will Bordell, Emmeline Plews and Femi Adekoya v Monckton Chambers’ Paul Harris KC, Blackstone Chambers’ Lord Pannick KC, and Serle Court’s Philip Marshall KC and James Mather, and One Essex Court’s Nathaniel Bird

To try and suggest this case was not very complex is really quite strange at this point. It is just not debatable.

Nobody was surprised by the nature of the club's defence. Stories like this from someone like Delaney are just all rubbish. Everybody knows a defence team like City put up fights extremely hard. Litigation is confrontational, adversarial, aggressive and bitter. Especially when allegations of dishonesty and bad faith are in play. As for new battlefronts, they would have to be separate cases like APT which due to the distinctive and misaligned timelines do not impact the deliberations - the panel can't take in things that the parties haven't even pleaded as their position.

Fair enough. We will all see soon with complete clarity, I hope.

 

[slbsn]

The volume of material or the length of the hearing isn’t necessarily a direct function of the complexity of the case. Often the most grandiose and protracted of proceedings can boil down to a very simple principle. The Jaffa Cake VAT dispute being a case in point. The principle that arose from that determination is entirely straightforward. You don’t need to be a legal professional to grasp that.

So not undeniably.

But accept it most likely is.

I checked btw. Jaffa case was 2 days of submissions. Don't think it is a proxy at all for a 10 week quasi fraud hearing.

[1991] Lexis Citation 995
TRIBUNAL CENTRE: LONDON
LOCATION: SITTING IN PUBLIC AT 15-19 BEDFORD AVENUE,LONDON WC1B 3AS
CASE REFERENCE NUMBER: (LON/91/160)
TRIBUNAL CHAIRMAN: D POTTER
DATE: THURSDAY THE 13 JUNE AND TUESDAY THE 30 JULY 1991

 

[give it to gordon]

View attachment 194481

What's Boy George got to do with this ?