PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[terraloon]

I think the UEFA nominee was almost obliged to champion their case - given each party could nominate one of the panel members of their choice. I’m fairly sure I’ve read unanimous decisions don’t really happen at CAS. The PL panel is different in that the members are selected by the chairman (Rosen ?) who is an eminent Kings Counsel and will behave with absolute integrity.

You are probably right as to how the UEFA nominee how the City nominee voted but we simply don’t know but on that basis what in effect is being said is CAS outcomes are decided on one persons views

The PL panel will be as close to independent as is possible and I like everyone that is expressing an opinion has absolutely no idea as to the strength of the PLs case nor is it remotely possible to second guess how the panel will reach the point on the balance of probability but and here’s something that I hadn’t thought about till it was mentioned yesterday everyone attending, and probably giving evidence, will have English as their first language and will be experienced in and mainly trained in English law as opposed to Swiss .

Put all that together and, well I am back where I started !

 

[Dirty Harry]

I think it’s clear that the process hasn’t been fair, shouldn’t be too hard to prove.

Problem with that is if the people you’re trying to prove it to are pretty much judge, jury and executioner :-S.

 

[Maly]

They took 3 of our scouting staff and they used the log in details of someone that still worked for us, no "hacking" as such took place. Just unauthorised access (and I'm still not accepting that they're one and the same :) ) over an 8 month period.

What you’ve just described, is hacking mate. Unauthorised access is hacking, regardless of what you accept or don’t accept :)

 

[cheekybids]

What you’ve just described, is hacking mate. Unauthorised access is hacking, regardless of what you accept or don’t accept :)

It’s not using dynamite that makes you a bank robber but the stealing of money ;)

 

[Maly]

You are probably right as to how the UEFA nominee how the City nominee voted but we simply don’t know but on that basis what in effect is being said is CAS outcomes are decided on one persons views

The PL panel will be as close to independent as is possible and I like everyone that is expressing an opinion has absolutely no idea as to the strength of the PLs case nor is it remotely possible to second guess how the panel will reach the point on the balance of probability but and here’s something that I hadn’t thought about till it was mentioned yesterday everyone attending, and probably giving evidence, will have English as their first language and will be experienced in and mainly trained in English law as opposed to Swiss .

Put all that together and, well I am back where I started !

Part in bold is completely irrelevant bud

 

[domalino]

Speaking from experience most big multinational organisations are structured in an odd way on paper

I worked for one of the ten biggest organisations in the world and we had an entire team of people looking after things like this. Even taking advantage of currency fluctuations within the cash in the group of companies because of this kind of organisational design. It doesn’t necessarily point to wrongdoing.

Another reason could be the lower tax paid in the BVI

This kind of stuff was discussed in the month and 3,000 comments since I posted that! Not sure it’s worth reviving.

 

[Chris in London]

Well, the club claims otherwise, and publicly neither side has proven either way, so it depends who you believe.

According to the club, we sent them everything they asked for, practically bent over backwards whilst their goons snooped through our private and often sensitive documents

It doesn’t depend on who you believe.

There is no doubt we initially refused to cooperate. That’s why there was an arbitration ruling against us, an appeal to the High Court and a further appeal to the court of appeal. This is material that has been publicly available for over 18 months.

Since we lost those appeals there is no doubt we have cooperated with the PL inquiry. The disclosure we have provided would apparently fill a skip. That does not mean that we were not initially guilty of a failure to cooperate

 

[SilverFox2]

Problem with that is if the people you’re trying to prove it to are pretty much judge, jury and executioner :-S.

Correct but surely displaying their unfairness in what is supposed to be a fair process proves the point that they are unfit for purpose.
They should not be showing a bias towards any Party if they want to show a Gov Regulator is not needed.

 

[birchwoodgingerste]

It doesn’t depend on who you believe.

There is no doubt we initially refused to cooperate. That’s why there was an arbitration ruling against us, an appeal to the High Court and a further appeal to the court of appeal. This is material that has been publicly available for over 18 months.

Since we lost those appeals there is no doubt we have cooperated with the PL inquiry. The disclosure we have provided would apparently fill a skip. That does not mean that we were not initially guilty of a failure to cooperate

So once we filled a skip with the evidence we then let the pl inquiry take place is that correct!:))

 

[Blueknows]

Well, the club claims otherwise, and publicly neither side has proven either way, so it depends who you believe.

According to the club, we sent them everything they asked for, practically bent over backwards whilst their goons snooped through our private and often sensitive documents

Our main gripe is that we provided uefa with the info they wanted and as soon as we submitted our accounts they moved the goalposts