Search results

Yes but say the City witness has a file note and the PL person doesn't - just an example.

Yes apparently so. PL witness cross examined by City

I agree with this also. Almost no chance - and you don't want an adverse witness where you have no idea what he/she will say anyway.

I agree. The only other issue I think the PL witnesses may be important is if the PL deny knowledge of certain matters at the time. That is likely to be clear in the documents but if not, say, City's witness say they were discussed orally and the PL says they have no record of such a discussion...

The only disclosure from the PL would have been related to specific points - this idea that City asked for “all PL correspondence” has always been nonsense. Just doesn’t work like that.

Of course but it just won’t mean much on those initial reads

C£60-70m pa

Wide range of outcomes. IC could conclude lots of different things from very serious to a minor or non-cooperation. Smaller, technical breaches are possible but so are serious ones. Very hard to know until we see the decision

Doubt it. Documents won’t come alive until pored over in opening, cross examination and then in closing anyway. And the overall bundle will be huge so no chance they will have flicked through the whole of that

All pretty unlikely especially before any cross examination which won’t conclude for some time. Right now the best the sides will have is an impression of each ICs members general view. It’s really very very early in a hearing like this

The IC would have read the written openings which will refer them to the parties’ key documents and positions. They will be taken through the documents in more detail through the hearing.

Plus every director has remained on the board including some with no skin plus unequivocal witness evidence at CAS from all sorts of people

In fairness, the sponsorship allegations, if all proved, are quite material and serious albeit quite a while ago.

not really. Closest to that is some proposal to settle on very favourable terms. All unlikely at this stage

That has always been my impression to but who really knows.

Yes - not new documents in all likelihood but rather stressing the importance of a particular document that has already been in play as part of disclosed documents.

Shouldn't have been in the club's books but don't know if it is legitimate or not. Assume PL said fine.

I agree although there may be some elements of the defence based on prior/contemporaneous knowledge eg showing the PL knew about Mancinis consultancy maybe or Fordham etc. So could be extracting that confirmation from the PL. And perhaps something relevant on cooperation. Maybe

Yes - detailed written arguments with references to their key documents will have been swapped a couple of weeks back

No - very likely to be Monday to Thursday 10-4 every week. Maybe some gaps for witness availability but generally a lot of ground will be covered over 10 proper weeks. This week will have been oral openings where the two sides take the panel through an overview of the case and evidence. Next...