PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

slbsn said:
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
Click to expand...
Fair enough.
 
Yeah I find it hard to believe that with these guys experience in the global business world that they would a) invest a load of money and then b) risk it all by breaking rules or even fail to understand the rules and accidentally break them (but thats not what the charges are anyway). Possible that they read the rules and then found loopholes the prem league are now trying to back date charges against.
 
Coatigan said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think if we get what we want from the verdict there is no need for any further disclosures or option choices etc..
If we don't maybe the Wonderwall he promises may be more entertaining.
 
Last edited:
Brightwell Bros. said:
It's mad to me that the interview has generated so much discussion when the only thing he says are things we already know: we don't have a result yet and City remain confident they'll be cleared of the main charges.
Click to expand...
It’s a symptom of the fact that we are getting increasingly impatient to get the outcome (we want).Also maybe we wanted just a bit more from Kool hand.
 
Brightwell Bros. said:
It's mad to me that the interview has generated so much discussion when the only thing he says are things we already know: we don't have a result yet and City remain confident they'll be cleared of the main charges.
Click to expand...
The interview suggests city are quite a bit more than just confident

And bear in mind that this ‘wonderful chat’ line isn’t an off the cuff remark. Those interviews are heavily scripted and could quite easily have been edited out
 
halfcenturyup said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think the deliberate message was heard, not just by City fans either. The 115 traffic on social media from fans of the cartel clubs has gone from an raging torrent to a trickle. Whether the message was based on inside knowledge or just putting in a front, it has had positive effect for City fans and for the first time I can recall, it has empowered us to engage on the front foot rather than trying to bat away toxic nonsense....let's hope his confidence has some foundation.
 
slbsn said:
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.
Click to expand...
So why the delay ! Why have you been so wrong on time scales ?

Also I take issue with what you have said 10 100 or 1000 emails discussing Etihad sponsorship doesn’t make it more complex especially if what’s on those emails could have been condensed down to a few. It does take more time to read but that’s not the most important thing.

As far as we know there is nothing precedent setting.

However perhaps there is a reason for the delay such as improper conduct by the Premier League. Like bowing to pressure to bring the charges ignoring legal advice or treating clubs differently look at Chelsea
 
Last edited:
The case is so complex and they don’t seem in any rush either, They are doing other things work apart from this I suppose to.

Slbsn is usually right for me so I take his take than most..

Just hope we ain’t he this time next year waiting..
 
slbsn said:
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
Click to expand...
FWIW, I know somebody who was closely involved in that case. I think the actual hearing only took one day, because the tribunal adjudicator (a QC) decided that expert witnesses were not required.

The tribunal came to the subjective conclusion that a Jaffa Cake was more like a cake than a biscuit (allegedly helped by McVities introducing a 12" sized example of said 'cake' in evidence!). The ruling was released just a short while later, in August 1991.

If only our case was so simple!
 
rm16 said:
Yeah I find it hard to believe that with these guys experience in the global business world that they would a) invest a load of money and then b) risk it all by breaking rules or even fail to understand the rules and accidentally break them (but thats not what the charges are anyway). Possible that they read the rules and then found loopholes the prem league are now trying to back date charges against.
Click to expand...

It is normal for large multinationals to be taken to court on a regular basis for breaking rules.

In fact the bigger the company the more likely it is, like every big tech company facing antitrust suits.
 
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