City & FFP | 2020/21 Accounts released | Revenues of £569.8m, £2.4m profit (p 2395)
- Thread starter Marvin
- Start date
Kinkys Left Foot
Well-Known Member
So what's the judge or panel waiting for in this PL v City case? Have they issued any instructions to either party?
Is one of the parties meant to be busy doing something? Nobody knows. We only know that City objected to several peripheral or procedural matters and were u successful. The judge has castigated one or both parties regarding the length of time taken in the proceedings but that's all.
The fucking sneaky thing about these proceedings is that they are continuing following the decision of CAS.
Rather like being the slightly nearer ball on a golf green and putting second on the same line, they get a lovely "tell" from the earlier proceedings.
That allows the prosecution to avoid errors made by the original accusers, UEFA and to adjust their strategy accordingly.
I would imagine the fact there was "no evidence" to support wrong doing is still quite a large legal hurdle to overcome as we certainly haven't exceeded PL FFP limits on spending. Knowing that, the PL can surely only be pursuing the same allegations of our owner paying our sponsors bills according to information on 12 year old emails that has already proven to be not what happened.
We haven't been uncooperative with the PL as far as I'm aware so can't be fined for that in this case.
It leaves the PL between a rock and a hard place, what a shame.
Perhaps they need this amount of time to trump up some utter bollocks to make us seem guilty of something.
I'm fucking sick of it, I don't know how our ownership and execs aren't fucking sick of it. We all know from where this shit emanates and we should be plotting our revenge. May it be long and painful for our enemies.
Is one of the parties meant to be busy doing something? Nobody knows. We only know that City objected to several peripheral or procedural matters and were u successful. The judge has castigated one or both parties regarding the length of time taken in the proceedings but that's all.
The fucking sneaky thing about these proceedings is that they are continuing following the decision of CAS.
Rather like being the slightly nearer ball on a golf green and putting second on the same line, they get a lovely "tell" from the earlier proceedings.
That allows the prosecution to avoid errors made by the original accusers, UEFA and to adjust their strategy accordingly.
I would imagine the fact there was "no evidence" to support wrong doing is still quite a large legal hurdle to overcome as we certainly haven't exceeded PL FFP limits on spending. Knowing that, the PL can surely only be pursuing the same allegations of our owner paying our sponsors bills according to information on 12 year old emails that has already proven to be not what happened.
We haven't been uncooperative with the PL as far as I'm aware so can't be fined for that in this case.
It leaves the PL between a rock and a hard place, what a shame.
Perhaps they need this amount of time to trump up some utter bollocks to make us seem guilty of something.
I'm fucking sick of it, I don't know how our ownership and execs aren't fucking sick of it. We all know from where this shit emanates and we should be plotting our revenge. May it be long and painful for our enemies.
StillBluessinceHydeRoad
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2020
- Messages
- 2,148
- Team supported
- City
We haven't done anything and we've had enough of kangaroo courts.
HolisticJim
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 28 Jan 2009
- Messages
- 4,347
It's got to be verging on slander at this point.
Centurions
Well-Known Member
You mean libel I think but there's an explanation here of why we're ignoring Der Shite:-
A Slaughterhouse Helps Explain Why Manchester City Has Not Sued Der Spiegel Over Its Hacked Emails
If Manchester City feels there are illegally obtained materials being used to deliberately tar its name and it has top lawyers at its disposal, why isn't it suing?
www.forbes.com
FrankSwift1
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 25 Jan 2014
- Messages
- 900
Can someone please explain the 6 year limitation in English law?
Does it mean that every day we don't get charged is good news for us? So now only evidence from after 10th of April 2016 ca be used?
Does it mean that every day we don't get charged is good news for us? So now only evidence from after 10th of April 2016 ca be used?
neilhb
Well-Known Member
When I worked in insurance the 6 year rule applied from the date a case is filed. So if action was brought on 1st May 2018, anything back to 30 April 2012 is relevant. The case could then run for several years without the 2012 date being affected.
I would assume that this would be the same in this case.
Centurions
Well-Known Member
I'm no lawyer myself but I believe that's correct. All this bollocks about us prevaricating in order to run the clock down is just bollocks. The law doesn't work like that.
UEFA's statute of limitations and British law are different. British law is six years. We won't be charged so it's neither here nor there. The absolute mountain of evidence they would need would be staggering.