PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Invisible Man's Bandage said:
The Telegraph is reporting that the government has issued a PIIN (Public Interest Intervention Notice) that will block the Redbird IMI backed buy back of the Telegraph by the Barclay family. This will trigger investigations by both Ofcom and the CMA to decide if it should be totally blocked or conditions be put in place before it is allowed.

The money for this buy back is almost exclusively coming from IMI, which is owned by Sheikh Mansour, and this is basically why they have done it. So a couple of days after Khaldoon was being courted by Jeremy Hunt for inward investment they are now effectively saying AD money isn't wanted for the Telegraph sale. The notion that the government will be leaning on the PL in support of our case looks a lot more like wishful thinking. They will pick and choose, so investment in Sizewell is deemed good but for other things it isn't wanted.
Click to expand...

Real interesting side story this and one to keep an eye on.

Govt interfering in a private sale in my uneducated view, I am sure there must be more in it.

I can understand why the Govt may not want it being owned in this way.

I disagree on the football side, as I don’t see a massive downside to the Govt in it, whereas with Telegraph it is more a stick potentially used to beat them.

If we asked Govt to have a word with PL (which Boris would have been better then Rishi for us) then so be it, but I don’t think it will be something we will have done.

I would not be totally surprised if someone of their own back in Govt reminded PL they need to be 100% certain to do this and be able to prove it. However I also think the Govt might think there not are relationships when this happens let Labour deal with any fallout.
 
Iassel said:
That’s fine, it’s all a game of opinions at the end of the day.

Ultimately though, the club say they have ‘irrefutable evidence’ that the charges are bollocks. To see this evidence is to kill the case stone dead, there is that little ambiguity.

That then only leaves two scenarios.

1. The club have this evidence, have decided under legal advice to not engage with the investigation (very likely to avoid falling foul of a fishing expedition) and accept non-compliance charges that will result in a hefty fine

2. The club have provided all of this evidence, the PL and some of the UKs top legal minds, people who pick and choose their cases, have seen this evidence and still plowed ahead in a case of such corporate negligence it makes Gerald Rayner look a visionary, and thrown in non-compliance charges for a laugh also.

My point was a simple one - a poster said if City are found not guilty of all charges they should ‘sue everyone’, but unless it’s a case of scenario 2 above, it’s simply not possible, and if it’s scenario 2 at the end of the day, the PL executives and KC’s who saw ‘irrefutable evidence’ and pushed on would have being sued way down their list of concerns.


Also fine, but whilst it would be absolutely hilarious if all the PL have is the UEFA case that they want to retry, it stretches extremely thin the concept of plausibility that some of the UKs top KCs would be willing to put their reputations and their chambers’ reputations on the line to try that case again, especially with the weightiest allegations having already been found unsubstantiated by CAS. These guys earn millions of pounds a year and pick and choose their cases, they’re not taking this case for money or because they’re secretly Arsenal/Liverpool/United fans.

In that scenario, any KC worth their salt would be advising the club to ‘take a pinch’ if it were offered as some of the Walter Mittys would have you believe the PL have been desperate for. It’s not just SM who can make decisions anymore either, there are important shareholders with a lot of money on the line, it would be negligence of the highest order to refuse a settlement if offered no matter how confident you are.

If in 18 months time the ruling comes out and it turns out the PL had nothing more than the UEFA case, ran with it anywhere and got torn apart at the tribunal, I’ll be on here celebrating with you, trying to avoid a double hernia from laughing so hard, but for the reasons above, I just don’t see any plausible scenario that the PL and KCs would be that reckless, even with the pressure other clubs and an incoming independent regulator no doubt put them under.
Click to expand...

You seem to be basing your propositions on the assumption that a KC won't take a case they are going to lose. I guess you have more faith in the legal profession than I do. There are many reasons why a lawyer may take such a case, but most of them revolve around continued access to money.

Anyway, we will see soon enough, I suppose.

As an aside, though. What sort of evidence do you think the PL may have found from a review of the club's accounting and other records (and only the club's accounting and other records) that may bring them to their conclusion that for more than a decade the club has filed annual accounts that don't give a true and fair view?
 
jimmygrimblesboots said:
When they show the intro into Match of the Day at the end they show the Champions lifting the trophy , i timed it at less than two seconds , if that had been a red 'istree club it would be on for so much longer , the BBC cant even hide their hate for our club.
They can shove their licence where the sun doesnt shine , cant wait for another knobhead to come knocking on my door asking if i have a TV licence , the last one got so much abuse he was nearly crying , fuck 'em.
Click to expand...
I've just watched the 20/21 intro, and it was the same length for the Liverpool trophy lift.

 
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.