PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Colin Bells Boots]

Aha so I guess no further on really

PL still searching for additional charges in a desperate attempt to save face :)

 

[Winchester]

PL still searching for additional charges in a desperate attempt to save face :)

Aha

 

[CC1]

We should have obtained the services of this barrister rather than Lord Pannick - he appears to be better suited if dealing with vampires:
Barrister Details - Mr Paul Richard Garlick KC - Bar …

Why? And how is he better suited? I really think our owners will have done their research

 

[Centurions]

Thicko here...
Can someone explain
What bearing does the suspension jail sentence have on City and the FFP Situation now?

None whatsoever, we're not even mentioned in the charges he was facing anyway.

 

[halfcenturyup]

That sums it up pretty well.
My view is based on the premise that to be found guilty of unlawful activity this has to based on a judgement in a court of law on the criteria of beyond reasonable doubt and not under the rules of a members club.
So logically IMO it would then follow that most of the charges against City are time barred I.e. being more than six years old and not deemed unlawful.
However I am not a lawyer and something tells me if it was this obvious then City's lawyers would have had most of the charges thrown out already.

I suppose the statute of limitations will be the first matter considered by the panel which will force the PL to say clearly whether they think there has been action which opens up the earlier years. That's when the fun starts, I imagine. Like you I am not a lawyer, but I am (or have been) an accountant and I can't see that flying for the PL in all honesty.

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

It obviously can't be 51-49 as there's only three of them but what I can guarantee with no proof whatsoever is that there will be no "tampering".

Long drawn out? Definitely, but I've got no worries on the result no matter how long it takes.

Obviously with three people it 2-1 or 3-0 but the balance of probabilities I was referring to was the individual reasoning of each member.
City objecting to one Gunner on the panel would suggest ‘tampering’ admittedly for the want of a better word, is on our minds.

 

[Lord Blue]

I studied law for a year (as a part of an accountancy course, i know i know). Enough to know that I'm nowhere near qualified to even hold a worthwhile opinion.

It seems to me that once the charges were made, they would then need to back them up with some semblance of facts to support the charges. Presumably that has happened. If so have those facts ever been made public?

 

[halfcenturyup]

I studied law for a year (as a part of an accountancy course, i know i know). Enough to know that I'm nowhere near qualified to even hold a worthwhile opinion.

It seems to me that once the charges were made, they would then need to back them up with some semblance of facts to support the charges. Presumably that has happened. If so have those facts ever been made public?

No. It's all being held in private. Afaik, the first we will know is when it is all decided.

 

[Xhavenjoe]

Why? And how is he better suited? I really think our owners will have done their research

I'm guessing the clue is in his name.
Garlick
dealing with vampires

 

[Lord Blue]

No. It's all being held in private. Afaik, the first we will know is when it is all decided.

thanks. am i right, afayk, in thinking that the charges would have needed to be supported by "facts" ? "facts" that we will be fully aware of.