City launch legal action against the Premier League | City win APT case (pg901)

[kaz7]

Still no leaks ?

 

[Vic]

I think the burden of proof for the claimant would be incredibly high, especially against witness evidence to the contrary.

It's the 115 case in reverse, I suppose.

Edit: Let me try that again. The proof would have to be particularly cogent to counter witness evidence when the burden of proof is on the claimant. Is that any better? Fucking accountants playing lawyer :)

Even so, if someone said they had an aiibi for a crime you'd ask them to prove it.

"Other than your word for it, what evidence is there for how concern about Portsmouth and debt was transformed into rules that do not include any issue with debt?"

 

[Vic]

True. I also wonder if it's dawned on Harris the Magic Twat yet ....

That, for me, is one of the big takeaways. Again. That it's very difficult to prove that somebody actually meant what they appear to say in an email, if that person appears credible to a panel and can provide another explanation, even if that explanation appears to be completely at odds with what was written in the email.

It worked against the club as the claimant in the APT case and it should work against the PL as the claimant in the 115 case.

Yep, the email about Gulf states wasn't really about Gulf states.

 

[cheekybids]

A further possible explanation might be that the most vulnerable/badly managed clubs had already become insolvent in the preceding 12 years (whilst others potentially at risk, having seen what had happened to other clubs took the appropriate steps, regardless of rule changes).

Surely he biggest issue was the collapse of the TV deals around that time.

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/1768253/2020/04/29/itv-digital-football-league-administration-efl/

 

[hallsteve62]

Still no leaks ?

Only the roof at the Swamp ; )

 

[Vic]

And the Der Spiegel email about how we might get round the rules?

"This was just a bit of generic speculation about how any club might get round the rules. We had discussions too about how the rules might be formulated to include owner investment but not debt, as we also speculated that rivals might try to fix things that way."

Do you have evidence of that?

"Well, no, but we refer you to the case of Man City v FA premier league where a witness gave unsubstantiated evidence that the rules derived from concern about debt and the tribunal accepted that, with no explanation of how or why debt was then excluded from the rules."

 

[kingn6]

This @halfcenturyup guy isn't a legal professional anyway. I wouldn't listen to a word he says on legal issues, he only picks up what he knows from those other guys. What a fraud.

So you are like Guardiola and the other guys are Bielsa and Cruyff

 

[mancboy]

So you are like Guardiola and the other guys are Bielsa and Cruyff

Nah @halfcenturyup is like brandon the kit man, bald and always in the picture but not guardiola ;)

 

[117 M34]

Think the rules being changed will drag on for a long time.
I think city will have enough support so they don't get voted through again by 14 clubs without major changes, including the owner loans.
Think there will also be enough support to stop the owner loans being included.

 

[TonyM]

Still no leaks ?

I am quite proud. Immaculate tighty whities today... so far.