PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Nicholas van Whatsisface said:
There’s very little detail on the specific substance of this in any of the reports out there, but it is clearly referenced in most of the articles on our objection to Rosen.

It’s not that the rules didn’t exist. Apparently the PL recently changed some of their rules, and it seems they’ve relied on the new interpretations in relation to the charges against City, when clearly the apparent infringements all occurred before 2018 - and before the rules changed.

Without any of the detail, it’s difficult to make a call on the strength of this argument - and the extent to which these rule changes alter the case against is. But if it’s as clear cut as we appear to be claiming, then clearly this is a complete mess - and yet another damaging error on the part of the PL, which further undermines the strength of their case against us.
Click to expand...
Many thanks, that's very helpful. I'm following it as best I can with the little spare time I have but I hadn't picked up on that. It's a total mess, on that we can all agree.
 
You choose your lawyer. You get to decide whether any bias matters or not. If you think it does, you don't hire him/her.

You do not get to choose your judge. Not only must the judge not be partial, he must be seen not to be influenced by any matter related to the case. If any reasonable person thinks he might be biased, he cannot do his job correctly.

It's very simple.
 
Its very unlikely we are objecting to Rosen. The High Court already dismissed a similar point in our earlier applications. It would be waste of time. 99/100 Judges will assume an experienced KC is capable of objectivity even where he supports another football team. So only if we have proof of bias (rather than perceived or unconscious bias) could we succeed and we aren't realistically going to be able to show that. So the story is almost certainly wrong. https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2021/628.html

Fwb3xVpWcBc90pq
 
I concur with the general view the idea that City are objecting to who has been appointed to oversee this because he is an Arsenal fan is nonsense and yet just another media ruse to further taint our club. Any judge would tell you the idea of a barrister pre-empting their view based on what team they follow rather than the cases put in front of them would be ridiculous.

However the claim that the Premier League have moved the goalposts and are applying whatever rules they like to suit the allegations is clearly a valid one. They love to amend the rules each season, presumably to try to cover every eventuality possible but creates potential for contradictions/confusion.
 
Luca1894 said:
LEVY OUT, LEVY OUT, LEVY OUT

Just seen Spuds fans with flags wanting rid of Daniel. I don't know, football fans must be the most ungrateful people imaginable. When you think of all the time, all the money, all the energy Daniel has spent orchestrating a witch hunt against MCFC on behalf of those very fans. And this is how they repay him ! Maybe, if he had spent a tad more time focusing on own his club they would be in a position to compete with the likes of the little old CITEH...
Click to expand...

The same can be said for a lot of clubs. Very good at lobbying & getting execs on conflicting boards but shit at running football clubs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.