Search results

Well it is true he doesn't ask me for briefings like he does with Kieran. But he does seem to have changed his views on the drivers of FFP despite what he claims to think of things like my Unofficial Partner debate!

I think it’s safe to assume on literally any basis, City have NOT sent a letter to Mark Fcking Goldbridge. Deary me.

I guess so!!

That wasn't what the case tried to do. But you can't move it to the High Court just because you prefer it.

Hard to understand your point(s). You are fixated on irrelevant semantics and the absence of public statements. As I said earlier, read the FAQ.

I've explained many times. Not all fraud is criminal. Not all allegations of fraud involve the SFO or HMRC - in this case City will have paid more tax (or reduced its deferred tax losses) so HMRC is probably a red herring anyway. But there is not even a debate to be had about the nature of the...

These things are rarely straightforward. If the matters were proven it may well be that other authorities would involve themselves because in City's words at CAS: "The allegations made by the CFCB in these proceedings are serious and based on fraud and conspiracy involving MCFC, ADUG and the...

Not really. Each case is different. In any event, just because those raids occurred doesn't mean much in this context.

Very little of this very long ramble is correct. You should assume that top lawyers on both sides will conduct a quasi tribal based on thousands of disclosed documents, witnesses of fact and third party experts. Yes, things started with a hack but we are far beyond that now. Of course, your...

But you seem to have fundamentally misunderstood the situation - the alleged breaches are breaches of rules but they would also be breaches of various laws if proven - serious breaches. Put criminal law to one side (although they could also be breaches of the Fraud Act etc if ever charged and...

Civil fraud is really serious. As are the allegations in this matter/case/PL complaint or whatever you call it.

Legal cases are also dealt with in arbitration, quasi courts or other tribunals.

Not really sure what semantics you are playing with there but it clearly is a legal case.

Yes hence I said civil fraud. Fraud exists in civil and criminal - they are not the same. The standard of proof in the IC is civil - balance of probabilities

It is unlikely here that the SoL arguments could be taken as a separate hearing because they are intertwined with the underlying substantive matters. So it will all be assessed as part of the IC. Lawyers do commonly argue SoL and yes there has probably been correspondence on the point both...

The IC may not. But they are being asked to. Civil fraud not criminal fraud.

I wouldn't over complicate this. The case is based largely on the same facts but it is undeniable that the process will be more thorough, disclosure of documents far broader, the IC far more conventionally English (ie English law) and therefore has far more risk for City (and in different ways...

This is nonsense - to the extent there is a statute of limitations point to run, the IC will decide and will decide in accordance with English law - the rules are expressly stated to be construed in accordance with English law. There are reasons for the PL to argue that City's actions means the...

Not a problem. And btw, of course it was designed to get engagement. That was the point!

Yes i thought City fans would immediately realise it wasn’t about City. It was good today I think. Mr Jordan is “evolving” his view on FFP