PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[balotelli's back pocket]

But if we are as innocent as we say we are and have the evidence to prove it then why worry who judges the case?

1. Delay proceedings
2. Raising it now in case of possible appeal
3. Of course it matters who judges the case!

 

[Claytop]

1. Delay proceedings
2. Raising it now in case of possible appeal
3. Of course it matters who judges the case!

I get 2 & 3 but don't see how 1 helps us in any way. Maybe the club think differently but the sooner this gets sorted the better I'd have thought.

 

[bmfc95]

That seems to be one issue. No lawyer but I would imagine it's a pretty normal legal principle that changes can't be applied retrospectively. At least, it can open up accusations of bias and unfair treatment.

On the KC, I said at the time it was stupid of the PL to appoint an Arsenal season ticket holder. It's not really about him being biased, it's about opening the process to the accusation of bias. Stupid to give the opportunity for an additional 6 months delay and millions of pounds more costs when they could have chosen someone else. Even appointing him because he is their "chosen" KC who has represented them before opens up accusations of bias from continued appointment. Surprised if City really go that route, but stupid mistake by the PL.

You're right- typically you can't retrospectively apply a rule. What would be alarming is if what city are claiming is true, how the PL legal team thought that it was ok to do so

 

[balotelli's back pocket]

Having read it, it's a fluff piece, piggyback on last night.

Probably had it in the can for a few days.

Basically us challenging the legality of when some many of the charges can even be considered.

I sense everything up to 2018 is being argued as not applicable due to the rule changes.

Would also explain why we changed our image rights vehicle from 2018.

The Arsenal barrister is just a headline.

It's designed to get fans of other sides who've made their minds up (and a few nervous Blues) to think "Wow, is that all they have? Must be guilty."

The challenge on retrospective application of rules is far more relevant.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

Reads more like charges to be dismissed prior to adjudication due to process.

Does have a whiff of perhaps something else gamed out?

Got the same vibe prior to CAS.

 

[Ducado]

I doubt the PL will want to take this all the way to the Courts, things can get very nasty indeed, and the potential to bankrupt the league is always there (lawyers are not cheap )

I could also imagine pressure being applied by the UK government to make this go away

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

So did we challenge Rosen’s appointment in light of this club allegiance factor - which I must confess I’d never heard of - or because of our interactions with him in the intervening 3 months. Can’t say it fills me with glad tidings given our claims to have irrefutable evidence

Sounds more like we are just challenging the charges being retrospective.

The Rosen thing is just a headline.

 

[balotelli's back pocket]

I get 2 & 3 but don't see how 1 helps us in any way. Maybe the club think differently but the sooner this gets sorted the better I'd have thought.

Make hay while the sun shines, in case the worst happens?

 

[ganganvince]

But if we are as innocent as we say we are and have the evidence to prove it then why worry who judges the case?

Suppose its a bit like you get issued a PCN were due process hasn't been followed (timed out etc.) you have the chance to have it dismissed prior to court were you may think you have a good chance of winning. But would you take that chance if you didn't have to? especially as once you have moved on the option of challenging process would probably disappear.

 

[bmfc95]

I doubt the PL will want to take this all the way to the Courts, things can get very nasty indeed, and the potential to bankrupt the league is always there (lawyers are not cheap )

I could also imagine pressure being applied by the UK government to make this go away

I've thought this from day 1. Not too sure how the UK govt can stay quiet if the PL essentially charge/find guilty our owner (now the VP of Abu Dhabi) of fraud when the UK and UAE have vital trade links