Search results

If I was the PL, I'd be cross examining every witness. The Mancini matter is dead with an unchallenged witness statement. If a witness statement is unchallenged, the panel are likely to accept every word as unchallenged evidence ie fact.

In person by default but plenty remote I suspect. There is a back door it seems so don't expect to see witnesses coming and going

In the absence of the specific carve outs to the statute of limitations points, bad faith in isolation would not break the SoL. And it can be distinguished from fraud. Clearly, if fraud then it is also bad faith but not vice versa necessarily (I would argue).

Everton £8m

I'd assume a) it has been permitted before b) United have had it cleared already. I just don't believe they would take chances in a NYSE announcement. That said it appears both the PL and United have not guided either way which is a bit odd

Even if they could run a fall back bad faith claim, it’d likely be time barred

2

I wouldn't look at it like that. Separate the charges and topics. Lets say City win on all but cooperation then an assessment would be made on the costs of dealing with those parts of the case. Cooperation is a cheap part of the case - almost all costs are outside of cooperation. If City breach...

Costs will go with the loser. If City won on everything there is a good chance they would get what is known as “indemnity costs” of 80-90% back. A split decision would make the costs decision trickier. Everton got very lucky on their costs IMO - given their big loss they were lucky to only pay...

Probably to take the cross examination plans off the senior juniors and carry out the the cross examination itself

Looks pretty clear the allegation is we didn't cooperate with the whole investigation which commenced post Der Speigel. Simple as that and therefore all after 2018.

Except it is largely nonsense.

The non-cooperation is clearly in respect of the process of the investigation itself. So not sure I understand the first para. On the second para, the PL will say they were asking legitimate questions and the club was obliged to cooperate regardless of its views on merits. In isolation, this...

For the PL, I'd say it shows there will be a lot of City witnesses the PL will want to cross examine - the senior juniors will need to work on cross examination plans aimed at extracting the answers the PL wants to undermine the credibility of witnesses ie make them look unreliable. In terms of...

The hearing is very likely to match the timetable set out now. People will be scheduled as witnesses, experts scheduled, written and oral closings booked in. This is a hearing now designed to go a long way - look at the scale of the bundles being in brought in today to supplement the digital...

Not as I understand it. City did not play ball with UEFA. But it seems they did with the PL but the extent of cooperation is disputed.

As it happens a) I don't think that will work b) won't be our defence. I suspect they will say they did disclose and cooperate fully and hope that they if they have won on the substantive charges, the Panel will be onside. If they have lost on the substantive, it will be largely irrelevant...

Proving a 10 year conspiracy is difficult yes. Time barring is less certain - only that English law SoL applies.

Don't think that is true. He's been everywhere this morning. I got bumped from the Today programme. I am on Times Radio later and in the Sun this AM. But KM is the go to guy. No question.

IF it is today it will be 10am