Search results

Probably more a Colin or Stefan question, but from a legal perspective the idea of dishonestly providing improper accounts would essentially make them not legal. The idea of good faith is an honest belief of the preparers and those who sign them off that they are true and accurate.

I dont disagree. There remains issues of mitigation that could be used to deflect that charge. The original emails were provided to CAS and only then accepted as evidence. It showed the der spiegel emails to be doctored to cause the worst possible outcome for City. The other interesting issue is...

The parties will in conjunction with the panel likely agree a timetable and order of what is dealt with and the order in which it will be dealt with.

I got that, but it is also a valid question which I thought was worth answering. Probably one others are asking as well.

Correct. However it is as I described in a different post not indefensible. You cannot be forced to provide documents that do not exist, are not properly identified or totally irrelevant.

There are myriad arguments and Pannick will submit them all…

In criminal cases the government has the power to subpoena records from non parties. In a case like this it is highly unlikely that they can force eg Etihad to supply records. However if they are helpful to City it is more than likely that those records will be supplied. It is however for the PL...

It’s normal on these types of proceedings to deal with such discreet points of law first. If the issue is time barred then as per CAS there is little point in spending the time on the substantive part of the issue. There will likely be a preliminary part to the hearing on those issues.

Entirely accepted that the power is broad. However as a lawyer who is regularly able to help clients avoid providing documentation under discovery and to defend Motions to Compel that Discovery. It is a reasonable defense to state that the documents requested do not exist or that the request was...

The charge itself is almost identical. The difference is that at CAS we openly admitted failure to cooperate so there was no choice but to find the charge met and fine us accordingly. However we argued that the fine should be reduced due to the mitigating factor of the leaks that had been going...

I’m caught up now…

Sorry for all the replies in one go. With the time zone difference and waiting until I finish my working day it means most other posters are asleep. Also takes me a while to read everything and catch up… you lot are posting while I am asleep and then working…

I know that ostensibly you can’t do that, but realistically that is what UEFA first and now the PL have tried to do…

But if the accounts and financial documents do NOT show it and City refused to provide fishing expedition documents to show that it may or may not have happened…then the PL, who have the burden of proof, cannot show that it did. Remember we do not have to prove that something didn’t happen...

As I said before… never confuse tactics with incompetence…

It’s in several High Court cases brought over the last few years by the PL to obtain further info from City. Our stance has always been that we have provided what we are obliged to provide and anything else requires specificity not a fishing expedition.

Agreed. Once Discovery is complete I still think this ends with a whimper.

Not really. They do not need to decide anything other than what is or is not proven by the evidence to a sufficient standard. It is something the individuals concerned will be well used to doing. It is not about finding the truth of the matter. Just whether or not the PL has the cogent evidence...

Rex and Regina both start with R…good old Latin again… I can Feel another MGS chat about to start…

There are lots of idiots who support other clubs and who operate in the media…