Search results

Cheers. 1) no not resigned. I don’t know the extent or what city will argue. I don’t think it is the same as CAS. But can’t give per cent as I have no idea. 2) no because it’s a hopeless argument. No to the rest too 3) no

Think you are taking it all a bit seriously. I'll do different things for different reasons. Some for fun, some for challenge, some to show I am happy for my views to be interrogated by anyone inc. Liverpool fans, some for pocket money. You don't have to like it and I don't even know if x or y...

Documents that have been around and pored over for literally years

Part. Indeed, in that situation it is very likely City would get indemnity (the highest tier of cost awards) costs for much of the claim. Still would never exceed 85-90% of costs.

Yes except it is very unusual to have a company where the board goes round suing the shareholders with company money.

They will act independently. Probably regulatory and PR guys and some consultation with Masters, then they press release. Won't clear announcements with clubs

Exactly. But that is my point - the money is just the top slice of PL clubs' money

We are paying our share indirectly - all clubs are. It has no independent revenue streams

They don't have insurance. But what policy would pay for a regulatory complaint against a member club. Would be an odd/very niche product. The PL doesn't have its own money. It takes funds from the revenue in to pay its costs and then passes money to the clubs. The PL is not funded by a third...

But nobody suggested that. Your simplification just went too far the other way. SOL will apply unless some pretty serious things are proved. Your suggestion in the original message was a mere presentation of a doc or email the PL didn’t know about would kill limitations was wrong, hence I said...

You claimed we had no idea what they were. We do. They have “admitted offshore payments” They've not “admitted another accounting error but what that is no-one knows”.

Have no idea what you are saying but appears to say that your initial over simplification was therefore a misleading and partial answer?

I don’t agree that’s the test. The PL have to prove the consultancy was actually part of his employment with MCFC and, therefore, that the consultancy was a sham and the contract disclosed under the relevant rule was also incomplete. I don’t even think they need to show financial benefit to City...

First, your suggestion was “If they find an email or document suggesting we've co cered something up or paid something we shouldn't have done” limitation would not exist. This has no relation to the carve outs to limitations. Of course, a process of evaluation of evidence would be required to...

It is a nonsense quote

Also not correct.

Except that is simply untrue. Not how limitation works at all.

It will always be ADUG to me...

My views have not changed. But everyone should be aware of the risk in any case. I have said this over and over. Don't be too certain about anything.

Not read in detail - sorry