PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[tolmie's hairdoo]

A big part of me hopes it's an Abu Dhabi-based company

Probably that Crypto OKX or Asahi according to a couple on here yesterday?

 

[OB1]

A bigger part of me hopes that it's someone like Coca Cola - now that will boil some serious fucking piss!

They would only sponsor a team with red shirts!

 

[MrsBanks]

Something has been niggling at me for a couple of weeks. When Lord Pannick represented Boris Johnson at the Privileges Committee he repeatedly criticised the process that was being followed. Without going into politics, it seems to me there are some parallels between this and our case in that it was effectively a private members club holding one of their own members to account without recourse to law.

Lord Pannick was essentially arguing from the outset that the process was unfair and unlawful because of important points:

• Lack of eivdence of intention to mislead required,
• The standard of proof required,
• Anonymity for witnesses allowed,
• No cross-examination of witnesses allowed,
• Lack of clarity on charges and evidence in advance of hearing.

As we all know, the Privileges Committee found Johnson guilty of contempt and during the subsequent debate in the Commons there was much discussion on the process followed. In particular, Chris Bryant, MP for Rhondda said the following

“The House has always claimed … the only body that can discipline, suspend or expel a duly elected Member of the House is the House of Commons in its entirety. I still hold to that principle. It is why any decision or recommendation to suspend or expel a Member that comes from the Standards Committee or the Independent Expert Panel has to be approved by the whole House. It is also why the only way to proceed when there is an allegation that a Member has committed a contempt of Parliament, for instance by misleading the House, is via a Committee of the House and a decision of the whole House. That is why we have to have the motion today and had to have the Committee on Privileges. It cannot, I believe, be a court of law. It has to be a Committee of the House. I do not think some commentators have fully understood that, including Lord Pannick and some former Leaders of the House.” (Hansard)

My concern is that our legal team are going to war using established legal principles when, just like the Privileges Committee, the PL are singing “We’ll do what we want …”

Perhaps someone better informed than me can put my mind at rest.

 

[Sir peace frog]

Having the ring of truth or plausibility but actually fallacious.

fallacious. , is that like muff diving :)

 

[Centurions]

Enough is enough. i think its time We started fighting back instead of ignoring it all and taking it on the chin, it's time we started sueing these bastards. Come on City fucking man up and get these cunts in court, let's grow a pair for once shall we. I tell you what this wouldn't have happened at united while ferguson was there he would have fucking hammered them.

And what specifically would you sue them for from last nights "revelations"?

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

The back row Withington, instant flashback was double seats.

Were you on a double?

My memories fucked.

Yep, a double, like a brown velvet colour!

Very springy though ;)

 

[cheekybids]

Probably that Crypto OKX or Asahi according to a couple on here yesterday?

As long as they don’t have a website I’m good with it.

 

[KS55]

What we really need is for someone in Abu Dhabi to setup a company called "F*ck FFP (ltd)" and be our shirt sponser...

Or….”Not Associated (AbuDhabi) PLC”

 

[SilverFox2]

The club remaining silent, will just piss them off. And I'm happy they do

By solely concentrating on their investment our owners have just had the best season ever both on and off the field.

Let our enemies continue with their distractions from yesteryear City have brands to caress, teams to tweak and trophies to retain.

Can't wait for our financial results to be published.

 

[bluenova]

Something has been niggling at me for a couple of weeks. When Lord Pannick represented Boris Johnson at the Privileges Committee he repeatedly criticised the process that was being followed. Without going into politics, it seems to me there are some parallels between this and our case in that it was effectively a private members club holding one of their own members to account without recourse to law.

Lord Pannick was essentially arguing from the outset that the process was unfair and unlawful because of important points:

• Lack of eivdence of intention to mislead required,
• The standard of proof required,
• Anonymity for witnesses allowed,
• No cross-examination of witnesses allowed,
• Lack of clarity on charges and evidence in advance of hearing.

As we all know, the Privileges Committee found Johnson guilty of contempt and during the subsequent debate in the Commons there was much discussion on the process followed. In particular, Chris Bryant, MP for Rhondda said the following

“The House has always claimed … the only body that can discipline, suspend or expel a duly elected Member of the House is the House of Commons in its entirety. I still hold to that principle. It is why any decision or recommendation to suspend or expel a Member that comes from the Standards Committee or the Independent Expert Panel has to be approved by the whole House. It is also why the only way to proceed when there is an allegation that a Member has committed a contempt of Parliament, for instance by misleading the House, is via a Committee of the House and a decision of the whole House. That is why we have to have the motion today and had to have the Committee on Privileges. It cannot, I believe, be a court of law. It has to be a Committee of the House. I do not think some commentators have fully understood that, including Lord Pannick and some former Leaders of the House.” (Hansard)

My concern is that our legal team are going to war using established legal principles when, just like the Privileges Committee, the PL are singing “We’ll do what we want …”

Perhaps someone better informed than me can put my mind at rest.

Does anyone have pictures of our board doing what they said they didn't do?

How about dozens of eye witnesses?

If not, then I wouldn't worry about comparisons :)