r.soleofsalford
Well-Known Member
Do you think he’s a plant.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules
- Thread starter ayrshire_blue
- Start date
nijinsky69
Well-Known Member
More “even handed”, I would say which is fine by me.Very supportive of MCFC though and has been from the start of our success.
People are missing the wood from the trees here.
The real story is - how did a completely anonymous documentary firm working through a London based law firm who refuse to disclose their identity manage to get hold of top secret documents from the UEFA CFCB?
And what role if any did Micheal Bolingbroke play in this? There's a fun name for you to start Googling connections and positions of. I know people might concentrate on his work between 2007 and 2014 but I'd suggest looking at 2015-16 and what other "clubs" he set up to start putting these points together in terms of opportunity and perhaps his work in 2019 that led to a somewhat failed venture in terms of motive. One day I'll write a book on all these fun little connections inside these types of organisations.
But that's all speculation, I'm not accusing him of any wrongdoing of course. That would be libellous.
The real story is - how did a completely anonymous documentary firm working through a London based law firm who refuse to disclose their identity manage to get hold of top secret documents from the UEFA CFCB?
And what role if any did Micheal Bolingbroke play in this? There's a fun name for you to start Googling connections and positions of. I know people might concentrate on his work between 2007 and 2014 but I'd suggest looking at 2015-16 and what other "clubs" he set up to start putting these points together in terms of opportunity and perhaps his work in 2019 that led to a somewhat failed venture in terms of motive. One day I'll write a book on all these fun little connections inside these types of organisations.
But that's all speculation, I'm not accusing him of any wrongdoing of course. That would be libellous.
bobbyowenquiff
Well-Known Member
It is a good point. The youtubers must have obtained an original (unredacted) version of the CAS document which included the name of the person who transferred the money. I don't think the name is significant and all the other information is already in the public domain so I am not sure it is very "top secret." However why did they make the film and what were they trying to achieve is a very good question to ask. And also: "Why did the Times allow themselves to be played like this?"People are missing the wood from the trees here.
The real story is - how did a completely anonymous documentary firm working through a London based law firm who refuse to disclose their identity manage to get hold of top secret documents from the UEFA CFCB?
And what role if any did Micheal Bolingbroke play in this? There's a fun name for you to start Googling connections and positions of. I know people might concentrate on his work between 2007 and 2014 but I'd suggest looking at 2015-16 and what other "clubs" he set up to start putting these points together in terms of opportunity and perhaps his work in 2019 that led to a somewhat failed venture in terms of motive. One day I'll write a book on all these fun little connections inside these types of organisations.
But that's all speculation, I'm not accusing him of any wrongdoing of course. That would be libellous.
It’s a new deal with EtisalatBig sponsorship deal being announced today...should go down well!
Or is it YouTube
Possibly. But not as intelligent as a bowl of Petunias.Do you think he’s a plant.
I don't think the name is significant and all the other information is already in the public domain so I am not sure it is very "top secret.
Among the other things redacted in the CFCB report are things related to "business intelligence" that competitors can use. A condition of their existence is to provide top security to any submissions that fall under this. This, of course, is why we stopped cooperating with them in the first place.
Just because he owned and worked for a media company with a addresss on Sir matt Busby way does not mean he would do anything so under handed !!!People are missing the wood from the trees here.
The real story is - how did a completely anonymous documentary firm working through a London based law firm who refuse to disclose their identity manage to get hold of top secret documents from the UEFA CFCB?
And what role if any did Micheal Bolingbroke play in this? There's a fun name for you to start Googling connections and positions of. I know people might concentrate on his work between 2007 and 2014 but I'd suggest looking at 2015-16 and what other "clubs" he set up to start putting these points together in terms of opportunity and perhaps his work in 2019 that led to a somewhat failed venture in terms of motive. One day I'll write a book on all these fun little connections inside these types of organisations.
But that's all speculation, I'm not accusing him of any wrongdoing of course. That would be libellous.
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 12,113
Hope so. I want City to play in The Amazon :)Amazon maybe?? :)
Sorry but your theory may be correct that we have a problem because it’s a private members club. It might also be true for other private members clubs as it were e.g golf clubs House of Commons etc. but Boris was banged to rights anyone who says otherwise is either deluded stupid Or insanely bias. So your argument holds no water furthermore who do you want to adjudicate over private members clubs the court ? Even for some random expulsion from a golf club for the wrong shoes ?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:
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
- 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.
“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.