PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

KS55 said:
No, it clearly did not. Just look at the first draft of the charges, riddled with mistakes. There is still one there that only applies to teams coming up from the championship. Lewis would not have missed the errors but sent it back to be corrected. There was clearly a breakdown somewhere.
Click to expand...
It’s a bit of an odd argument that them releasing the charge sheet in a hurry suggests Lewis won’t have advised on it. The fact that it was clearly rushed out to beat the news of the whitepaper on a new regulator and related to the old rule book is proof that indeed it had been prepared and agreed long before they released it in a panic.

Bluesince1979 said:
As has been said, there have been PLENTY of court cases over time, day in day out , all day every day, worldwide where the defence or prosecution have less than 0% chance of winning but a lawyer will happily take the case on because they are paid handsomely for it.

Lawyers are the biggest gangsters going
Click to expand...

I didn’t make any comment on whether there is any chance of winning, I merely replied to the comment claiming the PL would’ve laid charges without Lewis’ agreement.

halfcenturyup said:
Lost a bit of credibility with the "less than 0% chance" comment there, I think :)
Click to expand...

You seriously, hand on heart believe there is even a 0.01% chance that Lewis who has been involved in this process for more than 4 years now did not give his input before the charge sheet was drafted, let alone released?
 
Iassel said:
It’s a bit of an odd argument that them releasing the charge sheet in a hurry suggests Lewis won’t have advised on it. The fact that it was clearly rushed out to beat the news of the whitepaper on a new regulator and related to the old rule book is proof that indeed it had been prepared and agreed long before they released it in a panic.



I didn’t make any comment on whether there is any chance of winning, I merely replied to the comment claiming the PL would’ve laid charges without Lewis’ agreement.



You seriously, hand on heart believe there is even a 0.01% chance that Lewis who has been involved in this process for more than 4 years now did not give his input before the charge sheet was drafted, let alone released?
Click to expand...
Guessing: I think it is fair to assume the PL took advice from Bird and Bird and the KC on the merits. The precise drafting of the announcement then prepared by the legal dept at the PL and "checked" but missed by the external counsel. Then the case effectively handed over to Bird and Bird and counsel to run vs City. Bird and Bird then referring back for instructions and involvement of PL legal department. If at any point, Counsel thinks the game has changed (say new revelation or evidence) then of course, Counsel speak up. Counsel don't like losing so speak up. The client doesn't always listen or chooses to accept risk say for optics.
 
Iassel said:
You seriously, hand on heart believe there is even a 0.01% chance that Lewis who has been involved in this process for more than 4 years now did not give his input before the charge sheet was drafted, let alone released?
Click to expand...

I don't know, I don't care and I didn't even comment on that.

I merely tried to draw your attention to the fact that the concept of a percentage chance of less than zero doesn't exist, has never existed and will never exist in the real world in this or any other dimension. Unless, I suppose, you are talking quasi-probabilities or quantum mechanics, neither of which really apply to the professional performance of Adam Lewis unless I am very much mistaken.
 
dublinblue12 said:
Think it's wishful thinking, and some of those you tubers jumping on it could end up with egg on their face. I don't think it would be a good look to appear to be silencing free speech before a verdict has been reached. Afterwards Sue away. Saying that I hope the club are fighting back it seems a bit late now if true
Click to expand...
It's not silencing free speech though. There is no right of free speech if you're slandering someone (although I guess you still have the right to say it, just that you can be sued for it!)
 
Iassel said:
Without meaning to be a ****, you’ve gotten all overexcited off the back of an anonymous Facebook post by someone whose parents just turned on the parental controls and left them with no after school entertainment.

...
Click to expand...
It's not off the back of just one post though is it, unless all the different people who have posted on here from TH and others happen to be speaking to the exact same source from City, then it's looking more and more likely that things are moving at pace. Yes, I may be wrong in being optimistic about things but I'd take my outlook on life anytime over the alternatives.
 
Iassel said:
Without meaning to be a ****, you’ve gotten all overexcited off the back of an anonymous Facebook post by someone whose parents just turned on the parental controls and left them with no after school entertainment.


Eh? This is exactly what happened. Adam Lewis is the KC who would’ve provided his opinion to support moving forward. There is less than 0% chance charges were laid without his support.
Click to expand...
"Gotten" ?
 
projectriver said:
Of course, but this video was 2 weeks ago and close to the bone. I’d suggest if even that isn’t deleted then he’s not had any correspondence. And if deletion wasn’t requested then it would undermine any case that the party believed they had been libelled by that video
Click to expand...
Slander rather than libel, surely Stefan?
 
halfcenturyup said:
I don't know, I don't care and I didn't even comment on that.

I merely tried to draw your attention to the fact that the concept of a percentage chance of less than zero doesn't exist, has never existed and will never exist in the real world in this or any other dimension. Unless, I suppose, you are talking quasi-probabilities or quantum mechanics, neither of which really apply to the professional performance of Adam Lewis unless I am very much mistaken.
Click to expand...
I think he meant to post something like a -10% chance ;)
 
projectriver said:
Guessing: I think it is fair to assume the PL took advice from Bird and Bird and the KC on the merits. The precise drafting of the announcement then prepared by the legal dept at the PL and "checked" but missed by the external counsel. Then the case effectively handed over to Bird and Bird and counsel to run vs City. Bird and Bird then referring back for instructions and involvement of PL legal department. If at any point, Counsel thinks the game has changed (say new revelation or evidence) then of course, Counsel speak up. Counsel don't like losing so speak up. The client doesn't always listen or chooses to accept risk say for optics.
Click to expand...
It’s not just about losing. Counsel has a professional duty to update their advice when circumstances materially change, and also need to do so for reasons of indemnity. They shouldn’t even charge for that advice imo, although some unquestionably do.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
It’s not just about losing. Counsel has a professional duty to update their advice when circumstances materially change, and also need to do so for reasons of indemnity. They shouldn’t even charge for that advice imo, although some unquestionably do.
Click to expand...
Agreed but its a common misconception they just want to take the money, say, for the full trial.
 
I would be extremely, but pleasantly, surprised if the charges were dismissed or dropped at this stage. The premier league will have been under intense pressure to bring the charges and letting them fall away would cause them even more issues. Far better for them to hear the case so if they lose they can at least say to disgruntled clubs well we tried.

The only thing that is a little surprising is how long it is taking to confirm a date for the hearing. The longer that takes the more intriguing the possibility that something is happening behind the scenes.
 
Tb1981 said:
It’s amazing how one piece of info comes out about a few possible letters to journalists and all of a sudden all this other ‘bullshit’ comes out
My mate said…
I heard…
People then start going with it like it’s gospel
It’s all a load of shite much as I wish it was true
Click to expand...

Probably, but do you think there has been a definite change in mood music this last month or so?
 
pavelsrnicek said:
I would be extremely, but pleasantly, surprised if the charges were dismissed or dropped at this stage. The premier league will have been under intense pressure to bring the charges and letting them fall away would cause them even more issues. Far better for them to hear the case so if they lose they can at least say to disgruntled clubs well we tried.

The only thing that is a little surprising is how long it is taking to confirm a date for the hearing. The longer that takes the more intriguing the possibility that something is happening behind the scenes.
Click to expand...

The hearing date won't be announced, will it?
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
It’s not just about losing. Counsel has a professional duty to update their advice when circumstances materially change, and also need to do so for reasons of indemnity. They shouldn’t even charge for that advice imo, although some unquestionably do.
Click to expand...

I’ve watched a fair bit of the postmasters inquiry & it’s been amazing to see the level of incompetence from well paid professionals. (legal & executive)

Like the old ladies knitting as they watch a murder trial I’ve become a fan of the KCs grilling them about their motives. Would City be entitled to see Premier league paperwork, phone records, emails etc

We know it’s been political, & it’s cost the game tens of millions that could have gone to EFL or grassroots. Heads need to roll.
 
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