It does seem an impossible task for 3 people to decide the rights and wrongs of this case.
Agreed. Once Discovery is complete I still think this ends with a whimper.I don't see it going that long mate, too much outside noise now for City also not to be demanding a quick resolution, certainly with irrefutable evidence on hand.
It’s in the CAS judgment.
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.Sorry I meant the part about how we handled co-operation with the PL investigation.
What do you want?
If you want to inhabit a world where only things that have been explicitly stated by the club in a public statement are "factual statements" then you should probably just leave this thread and come back in 18 months when there's a verdict, because the only factual statement so far is the PL and City statements from last monday. The other 14,450 posts in this comment are opinion and discourse.
In the meantime, the rest of us are probably going to keep discussing the possibilities using what we have in the public domain and trying to figure out what the club is fighting.
What we know is that City's internal documents involve putting 4 random companies between ADUG and Fordham, 4 companies who do nothing, have no business plan, and involve routing things through the BVI.
Feel free to offer another theory why the corporate structure was like that if you don't think that's someone disguising it. Or don't, because it won't be a fact.
That may sound a bit dodgy but is there a rule saying you can’t do that? Is it illegal?
Company I worked for did something similar and were used to protect assets in case the parent company fell into difficulties.
For example, one of them owned the building and rented it back to parent company.
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.
As I said before… never confuse tactics with incompetence…OK thanks. Didn't follow all that in all honesty. I didn't think the PL would charge us all over again for the stuff that was cleared at CAS. More fool me :)
I've read pretty much every post in the last 25 pages and haven't seen any City fans arguing furiously that the club is guilty or wishing it so.
I've seen people who's interest in the case extends beyond "club says we're fine so wake me up when the not guilty verdict comes in" and who actually want to look at the details of the accusations and evidence in the public domain discuss the investigation, but perhaps you can't tell the difference.
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.We don't know. We know there's emails promising money, we know the discussed company was created, but that's it. Hence why I said "If the PL can convince the judicial panel it happened...".