PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

I think what's going to happen is we are going to get cleared of 114 charges and guilty of 1. And the premier league and everyone else are going to sing and dance and say see your guilty and we're going to say no we're not we were cleared of 114 and the one we have been found guilty on is bollocks ....and we're going to hear that stupid fucking cheat chants at games.
 
Centurions said:
You managed to pack a lot of nonsense into a relatively short post there.

The delay is due to the complexity (which may have been mentioned once or a hundred times). Stefan has always maintained that timescales are purely informed guesswork on his part.

Do you really think that the only evidence considered is 10 or a 100 emails?

"As far as we know there is not something setting" makes no sense.

Your last line is just laugable.
Click to expand...
I am not saying it’s 10 or 100 emails my point is more emails doesn’t mean it’s more complex reading lots of emails doesn’t take along time and I am sure they have people doing it.

I typed precedent setting

Stefan has been ve ru confident that we would have a result months and months and months ago

So there is no chance that something has been discovered something like the PL bowing to pressure from the Red clubs to bring charges or not dealing with clubs equally look at Chelsea
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
While CAS was relatively limited in its scope, 2 days of the 3 were devoted to issues like exact date for the limitation cut-off and admissibility of the emails. The substantive issue took 1 day from what I could gather.

The fact that this hearing took 10 weeks and the cost involved proves it was far more comprehensive than CAS. There were more substantive issues to address and the PL rules are far more generic than FFP, which probably makes things more complicated. Arguing over whether we showed "utmost good faith" - an ephemeral concept - is likely to be a lot harder than arguing over whether we disguised equity investment as sponsorship revenue.

It's also possible the Fordham arrangement was perfectly legal and above board, but the IC may possibly decide we didn't act in utmost good faith.

But looking at the audit trail of a payment is not in itself complex.
Click to expand...

That’s my thoughts, the time it’s taken can’t be to navigate the complexity at some point you have to make a decision party a or party b.

It’s cost £100m because you’ve got the brightest brains in law to navigate it, it’s not me & my mates…. Complex to me, feels that neither party knows who is in the right or wrong & yet the bravado is all City, we will be vindicated.

We’ve known so many cases where the law is used to stifle, hold, decisions where the outcome is better suppressed than communicated & it feels like that.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think when lawyers talk about complexity they see it through a particular prism. There are many different factors that can make a case complex for the lawyers. If you imagine a case where all the witnesses don't speak English and have to give evidence through an interpreter, that adds an element of complexity - for instance, does a familiar English legal concept have a direct equivalent in a jurisdiction governed by Sharia law? Are there nuances in the original evidence that are lost (or added) when it is translated into English? These add complexity to a case that in itself might be quite straightforward.

Then there is the simple value of the claim. A case that might be relatively straightforward in factual or legal terms may have an added layer of complexity simply because of the number of zeros on the claim form. The complexity arises simply because the stakes are so eye-wateringly high.

Then there is the volume of evidence. What again in factual or legal terms can be a relatively straightforward matter can become complex simply due to the vast amount of evidence or documentation. If you are seeking to infer dishonesty from a person's conduct, for instance - a simple enough concept - the complexity may come in trying to discern whether their motives are dishonest from a vast array of evidence about what they were doing and why.

Then there is legal complexity. For instance, in the 115 charges a number of legal issues arise which are not difficult concepts - eg limitation - but have to be considered within the context of a regulatory sphere, where their application may not be so straightforward. That adds another layer of complexity.

When you have a combination of factors such as the above, it becomes difficult to see a lengthy case as anything other than complex. This does not mean that when you boil it all down to its bare essentials, it doesn't reduce to some relatively straightforward factual or legal issues. But the tricky part - the complexity - is in boiling down a vast range of legal and factual issues to some relatively straightforward legal or factual questions.

Speaking for myself, I'd struggle to describe this many charges, with this much evidence, and this many legal issues, and this long a trial as anything other than complex. It doesn't mean that ultimately you can't reduce it to a simple question - did MCFC disguise owner investment as sponsorship - but you need to hack through a very dense jungle of evidence and documentation to get there.
 
Chris in London said:
I think when lawyers talk about complexity they see it through a particular prism. There are many different factors that can make a case complex for the lawyers. If you imagine a case where all the witnesses don't speak English and have to give evidence through an interpreter, that adds an element of complexity - for instance, does a familiar English legal concept have a direct equivalent in a jurisdiction governed by Sharia law? Are there nuances in the original evidence that are lost (or added) when it is translated into English? These add complexity to a case that in itself might be quite straightforward.

Then there is the simple value of the claim. A case that might be relatively straightforward in factual or legal terms may have an added layer of complexity simply because of the number of zeros on the claim form. The complexity arises simply because the stakes are so eye-wateringly high.

Then there is the volume of evidence. What again in factual or legal terms can be a relatively straightforward matter can become complex simply due to the vast amount of evidence or documentation. If you are seeking to infer dishonesty from a person's conduct, for instance - a simple enough concept - the complexity may come in trying to discern whether their motives are dishonest from a vast array of evidence about what they were doing and why.

Then there is legal complexity. For instance, in the 115 charges a number of legal issues arise which are not difficult concepts - eg limitation - but have to be considered within the context of a regulatory sphere, where their application may not be so straightforward. That adds another layer of complexity.

When you have a combination of factors such as the above, it becomes difficult to see a lengthy case as anything other than complex. This does not mean that when you boil it all down to its bare essentials, it doesn't reduce to some relatively straightforward factual or legal issues. But the tricky part - the complexity - is in boiling down a vast range of legal and factual issues to some relatively straightforward legal or factual questions.

Speaking for myself, I'd struggle to describe this many charges, with this much evidence, and this many legal issues, and this long a trial as anything other than complex. It doesn't mean that ultimately you can't reduce it to a simple question - did MCFC disguise owner investment as sponsorship - but you need to hack through a very dense jungle of evidence and documentation to get there.
Click to expand...

did MCFC disguise owner investment as sponsorship -

Why would City do that when the owner could just give City interest free loans and not pay the loan back ? This loans cant be done now.
 
manimanc said:
Khaldoon didn't need to say anything about the case.
He has always said in past interviews he can't talk about it.
Click to expand...
Could be wrong, but I’m sure in previous interviews he’s said similar things to this time i.e. that he can’t say much at the moment, but that he’s looking forward to speaking openly once we have a verdict. Only difference this time was the use of the word “wonderful” when describing the sit down he’ll have with Chris Bailey. As others have said, I think he chooses his words carefully so that did seem significant but who knows if undue weight is being put on it.
 
Chris in London said:
I think when lawyers talk about complexity they see it through a particular prism. There are many different factors that can make a case complex for the lawyers. If you imagine a case where all the witnesses don't speak English and have to give evidence through an interpreter, that adds an element of complexity - for instance, does a familiar English legal concept have a direct equivalent in a jurisdiction governed by Sharia law? Are there nuances in the original evidence that are lost (or added) when it is translated into English? These add complexity to a case that in itself might be quite straightforward.

Then there is the simple value of the claim. A case that might be relatively straightforward in factual or legal terms may have an added layer of complexity simply because of the number of zeros on the claim form. The complexity arises simply because the stakes are so eye-wateringly high.

Then there is the volume of evidence. What again in factual or legal terms can be a relatively straightforward matter can become complex simply due to the vast amount of evidence or documentation. If you are seeking to infer dishonesty from a person's conduct, for instance - a simple enough concept - the complexity may come in trying to discern whether their motives are dishonest from a vast array of evidence about what they were doing and why.

Then there is legal complexity. For instance, in the 115 charges a number of legal issues arise which are not difficult concepts - eg limitation - but have to be considered within the context of a regulatory sphere, where their application may not be so straightforward. That adds another layer of complexity.

When you have a combination of factors such as the above, it becomes difficult to see a lengthy case as anything other than complex. This does not mean that when you boil it all down to its bare essentials, it doesn't reduce to some relatively straightforward factual or legal issues. But the tricky part - the complexity - is in boiling down a vast range of legal and factual issues to some relatively straightforward legal or factual questions.

Speaking for myself, I'd struggle to describe this many charges, with this much evidence, and this many legal issues, and this long a trial as anything other than complex. It doesn't mean that ultimately you can't reduce it to a simple question - did MCFC disguise owner investment as sponsorship - but you need to hack through a very dense jungle of evidence and documentation to get there.
Click to expand...
I'll tell you what would make it complex, why not check every other club in the interest of fairness.
 
Chris in London said:
I think when lawyers talk about complexity they see it through a particular prism. There are many different factors that can make a case complex for the lawyers. If you imagine a case where all the witnesses don't speak English and have to give evidence through an interpreter, that adds an element of complexity - for instance, does a familiar English legal concept have a direct equivalent in a jurisdiction governed by Sharia law? Are there nuances in the original evidence that are lost (or added) when it is translated into English? These add complexity to a case that in itself might be quite straightforward.

Then there is the simple value of the claim. A case that might be relatively straightforward in factual or legal terms may have an added layer of complexity simply because of the number of zeros on the claim form. The complexity arises simply because the stakes are so eye-wateringly high.

Then there is the volume of evidence. What again in factual or legal terms can be a relatively straightforward matter can become complex simply due to the vast amount of evidence or documentation. If you are seeking to infer dishonesty from a person's conduct, for instance - a simple enough concept - the complexity may come in trying to discern whether their motives are dishonest from a vast array of evidence about what they were doing and why.

Then there is legal complexity. For instance, in the 115 charges a number of legal issues arise which are not difficult concepts - eg limitation - but have to be considered within the context of a regulatory sphere, where their application may not be so straightforward. That adds another layer of complexity.

When you have a combination of factors such as the above, it becomes difficult to see a lengthy case as anything other than complex. This does not mean that when you boil it all down to its bare essentials, it doesn't reduce to some relatively straightforward factual or legal issues. But the tricky part - the complexity - is in boiling down a vast range of legal and factual issues to some relatively straightforward legal or factual questions.

Speaking for myself, I'd struggle to describe this many charges, with this much evidence, and this many legal issues, and this long a trial as anything other than complex. It doesn't mean that ultimately you can't reduce it to a simple question - did MCFC disguise owner investment as sponsorship - but you need to hack through a very dense jungle of evidence and documentation to get there.
Click to expand...

Well explained Chris.

I think where I come from is there’s been a £100m thrown at this case to navigate these complexities & therefore the delay shouldn’t be blamed on that…..

I know I’m naive but you’d imagine the hearing was planned like a surgical operation, it’s not all voices & different bits of evidence coming out of sync.

I did laugh thinking that every witness came in speaking broken English at best…..

IMG_2324.jpeg
 
@Prestwich_Blue
You have mentioned etihad being a related party a likely issue discussed during the case.

Etihad have sponsored us long before the charges started being looked at by the PL and they look at our books every year. Plus it's hardly a secret that they sponsor us.

Why did it take them so long to start to make an issue of it?

Couldn't that have been discussed and examined amicably when etihad first started sponsoring us?
 
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