PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Chris in London]

It may be a silly question but is there any scope in this type of hearing for people who are subject to severe criticism to receive advance warning and a chance to respond similar to Maxwellisation in government enquiries ?

It’s not at all a silly question, it’s actually quite common for someone who is subject to serious criticism to be given advance warning and to effectively have a right to be heard before a judgment is made public.

Doesn’t explain 18 months though!

 

[Eric Hitchmough]

Being a city fan these last few years has been anything but miserable!!

I agree mate. I meant specifically in relation to the charges.

Wouldn’t swap the rest of it for the world!

 

[madloaf]

I agree mate. I meant specifically in relation to the charges.

Wouldn’t swap the rest of it for the world!

I know you did pal. I feel the same. The fucking jibber from other fans absolutely does my head in. I just want to know so we can own it, or hopefully, rub it in their fucking faces.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

Not too sure about that. I've never looked forward to a World Cup as little as this one.

Apart from the Viking’s contribution of course. Norway are my team this time.

 

[Sheikh rattle and roll]

I was just joking, really, but answer me this. The complexity of the case and the ensuing complexity of the judgment is being used as a reason for the passing of 18 months since the hearing. So, if we are to believe that, one of these must be true:

Commentators were wrong to expect the judgment last summer because they underestimated the complexity of the case, the hearing and the judgment.

Or

They were right to expect the judgment last summer but somehow the level of complexity has increased significantly, and by significantly I mean in a way that has taken three times as long, so far, than was originally expected.

Which do we think it is? Are there any other alternatives?

I’m trying to watch the tennis
Therefore I’m going to go with the first one

 

[Blue Mist]

Does anyone think this case is all that complex?

Jaffa clue what you've just started?

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I accept I must stop myself but here we go.

Firstly something like at least £100m of cost has been expended so far - litigation is expensive but this is already one of the costliest disputes in British legal history. There is a very good chance it will end as the costliest dispute ever in British history. That in itself is the end of the story on complexity.

But even if you want to go on, we don't know the full list of issues but rest assured you haven't covered them all there nor are they as simple as you assert. There was an extraordinarily large set of barristers on both sides to cover all the issues and all the witnesses. There is therefore undeniably a huge amount of ground to traverse in the hearing.

Of course not every document in disclosure is in play in the hearing. But the bundle will still have been hundreds of thousands of pages long. Simple cases don't take 10 weeks. Jury trial experience is, frankly, totally irrelevant - this is just not the same audience for the evidence or the level of complexity that will be presented.

It is also complex because it combines commercial agreements, accounting practice, cash movements, potentially accounting standards, potentially valuations, multi year breaches and therefore questions of intepretation as to rules in any given year, forensic accounting, witness evidence across multiple companies on and on. It is so obviously a complex case.

I promised you I'd be more adult in my dealings with you but you make that very difficult sometimes Stefan.

The fact is that neither of us were in the room, so we're both guessing and expressing our opinions based on the little information and knowledge we have. Part of that knowledge is that CAS dealt with our appeal Etihad in 3 days, probably 2 of which were submissions about the admissibility of the hacked emails and the exact timeline for applying the cut-off date for limitation. The facts of the sponsorship itself took 1 day therefore. So that suggests it really wasn't that complex.

I'm damn sure I've not covered all the issues but we'll only know when we see the full liability judgement. Until then I'll continue to express my opinion.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

Media training aims to help you avoid going out on an exposed limb.

Khaldoon will be a master of avoiding such sensitive areas, as he no doubt has to be when dealing with moves and deals that impact stock markets to the tune of billions…

So when he says stuff like this…especially on in-house content that is reviewed and edited for hygiene purposes… you can bet your bottom dollar it’s fully intended…

The content will have been double checked and signed off by Khaldoon. The script for the last sentence will have been carefully chosen. The most significant comment was the vow that the Club will go public with their comments after the ruling comes in. That shows we are not playing ball with the PL who no doubt want damage limitation. Khaldoon had no need to say that at all. He said it for a reason. It was a message to internal staff, fans, and especially the PL.

 

[wolviedinho]

Does anyone think this case is all that complex?

I don’t but when you involve lawyers charging per letter it can spiral. You can make it complex and you can make it succinct. The league chose 115 instead of 10.

Complexity v volume of information often overlaps depending on who the poster is on here. You could have 115 pieces of paper but only 1 is needed to prove or disprove fraud.

Some posters want to stress the complex nature of the case and others can see the straight line to fraud/not fraudulent based only on the information available.

Khaldoon can’t make it any clearer. If you don’t want to listen to the man at the epicentre of the storm then you have some sort of agenda.

Guarantee right now that we are cleared of the main charges. I don’t need to see an official document of any sort.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

The content will have been double checked and signed off by Khaldoon. The script for the last sentence will have been carefully chosen. The most significant comment was the vow that the Club will go public with their comments after the ruling comes in. That shows we are not playing ball with the PL who no doubt want damage limitation. Khaldoon had no need to say that at all. He said it for a reason. It was a message to internal staff, fans, and especially the PL.

If at least part of the delay is due to trying to limit the damage to the PL, then I do wonder how much he will actually say.

 

[slbsn]

I promised you I'd be more adult in my dealings with you but you make that very difficult sometimes Stefan.

The fact is that neither of us were in the room, so we're both guessing and expressing our opinions based on the little information and knowledge we have. Part of that knowledge is that CAS dealt with our appeal Etihad in 3 days, probably 2 of which were submissions about the admissibility of the hacked emails and the exact timeline for applying the cut-off date for limitation. The facts of the sponsorship itself took 1 day therefore. So that suggests it really wasn't that complex.

I'm damn sure I've not covered all the issues but we'll only know when we see the full liability judgement. Until then I'll continue to express my opinion.

CAS was a high level limited walk through a very limited amount of the same underlying material. But it was a very different hearing in a different forum to a different set of charges with a different set of evidence and different set of issues.

The people in the case literally describe it as "complex" (literally that word) and its cost £100m+ in legal fees. But have it your way.

 

[spider blue]

I don’t but when you involve lawyers charging per letter it can spiral. You can make it complex and you can make it succinct. The league chose 115 instead of 10.

Complexity v volume of information often overlaps depending on who the poster is on here. You could have 115 pieces of paper but only 1 is needed to prove or disprove fraud.

Some posters want to stress the complex nature of the case and others can see the straight line to fraud/not fraudulent based only on the information available.

Khaldoon can’t make it any clearer. If you don’t want to listen to the man at the epicentre of the storm then you have some sort of agenda.

Guarantee right now that we are cleared of the main charges. I don’t need to see an official document of any sort.

At last a voice of sanity (as far as I’m concerned).

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

I was just joking, really, but answer me this. The complexity of the case and the ensuing complexity of the judgment is being used as a reason for the passing of 18 months since the hearing. So, if we are to believe that, one of these must be true:

Commentators were wrong to expect the judgment last summer because they underestimated the complexity of the case, the hearing and the judgment.

Or

They were right to expect the judgment last summer but somehow the level of complexity has increased significantly, and by significantly I mean in a way that has taken three times as long, so far, than was originally expected.

Which do we think it is? Are there any other alternatives?

Both those statements can be true. Issues can always crop up during the process. The ruling could have a massive impact on the reputation of multiple global partners, senior managers. If Khaldoon is considered to be a fraudster it will be a shattering blow to all UAE investment deals in the UK ( because he also runs the Sovereign Wealth Fund). Thousands of jobs could be put at risk. The political fall-out for the Government would be huge. The legal battle is only one aspect.

 

[No1 was Colin bell]

I was just joking, really, but answer me this. The complexity of the case and the ensuing complexity of the judgment is being used as a reason for the passing of 18 months since the hearing. So, if we are to believe that, one of these must be true:

Commentators were wrong to expect the judgment last summer because they underestimated the complexity of the case, the hearing and the judgment.

Or

They were right to expect the judgment last summer but somehow the level of complexity has increased significantly, and by significantly I mean in a way that has taken three times as long, so far, than was originally expected.

Which do we think it is? Are there any other alternatives?

Behind the scenes negotiations trying to save face for one side or the other. If us it’s them trying to see of an appeal. If them it’s us saying get stuffed. ‍

 

[DJBusinesscake]

@slbsn @Prestwich_Blue You both disagree with alot on A to B shit, but what do yas agree with? And what do you both PREDICT will be the eventual outcome?

 

[Bodicoteblue]

The content will have been double checked and signed off by Khaldoon. The script for the last sentence will have been carefully chosen. The most significant comment was the vow that the Club will go public with their comments after the ruling comes in. That shows we are not playing ball with the PL who no doubt want damage limitation. Khaldoon had no need to say that at all. He said it for a reason. It was a message to internal staff, fans, and especially the PL.

Looks like a reinforcement of ‘those in glass houses should not throw stones’
which makes me think that there may be (hopefully) a concentrated and uncomfortable period of squeaky bum time in various boardrooms, offices and even homes of certain clubs’ directors and owners.
Hopefully.

 

[Brendan110_0]

Behind the scenes negotiations trying to save face for one side or the other. If us, it’s them trying to see off an appeal. If them it’s us saying get stuffed. ‍

We'd already know the outcome if this was the case, those spunk bubbles couldn't contain it.

 

[No1 was Colin bell]

I accept I must stop myself but here we go.

Firstly something like at least £100m of cost has been expended so far - litigation is expensive but this is already one of the costliest disputes in British legal history. There is a very good chance it will end as the costliest dispute ever in British history. That in itself is the end of the story on complexity.

But even if you want to go on, we don't know the full list of issues but rest assured you haven't covered them all there nor are they as simple as you assert. There was an extraordinarily large set of barristers on both sides to cover all the issues and all the witnesses. There is therefore undeniably a huge amount of ground to traverse in the hearing.

Of course not every document in disclosure is in play in the hearing. But the bundle will still have been hundreds of thousands of pages long. Simple cases don't take 10 weeks. Jury trial experience is, frankly, totally irrelevant - this is just not the same audience for the evidence or the level of complexity that will be presented.

It is also complex because it combines commercial agreements, accounting practice, cash movements, potentially accounting standards, potentially valuations, multi year breaches and therefore questions of intepretation as to rules in any given year, forensic accounting, witness evidence across multiple companies on and on. It is so obviously a complex case.

I also think the fact that the consequences for either side are absolutely massive may be causing delay as judgement needs to be caste iron when the law is generally grey, debatable and open to interpretation. And the “facts”, behaviours and written evidence will equally be open to various interpretations. Having said that the delay here is inexcusable.

 

[Ho Chi Man City]

Say for instance that we had clear evidence that we presented of another club putting pressure on the PL who were hiding huge losses elsewhere. Maybe the Cayman Islands. And the PL treating them with less accountability.

Yep, and being given dispensation to claim an additional 80m for Covid and dodgy share dealings, it’s bent in the extreme.

 

[Eric Hitchmough]

I know you did pal. I feel the same. The fucking jibber from other fans absolutely does my head in. I just want to know so we can own it, or hopefully, rub it in their fucking faces.

Amen brother!