PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[gordondaviesmoustache]

People pinning their hopes on an independent regulator are going to be very disappointed. As a government agency it will be filled with what are, essentially, civil servants. Its internal lawyers will be the kind of lawyers who wouldn't be employed by the private sector, and should they outsource their legal work, it will only be at government rates which immediately loses the interest of the big-hitters. Furthermore, the government can't afford to lose contentious cases either politically or financially, so will strenuously avoid making decisions that will be challenged and taking only the very lowest hanging fruit.

The government have great difficulty disqualifying ordinary company directors, the idea that a civil servant on £50k a year is going to go to Court to stop a billionaire owning a top club is utterly fanciful, much less that the regulator is going to challenge anything that the PL does.

In practice, all it will try to do is "redistribute" the money earned by the highest levels of the game, to...er..."more equitable" causes.

I think you are being a little unkind to public sector lawyers. There are plenty of very good, and some exceptional lawyers in the public sector (those who draft legalisation being one such example). There are plenty of legal professionals who eschew the corporate world with all the associated demands on their time and the pressure from cunty senior partners to bill for every fucking second on the clock - and they choose to have a lower salary in order that they can have a more appropriate work/life balance.

I think this is especially true of many female lawyers with childcare responsibilities in the public sector who simply don’t want to be working weekends and into the evening on weekdays to satisfy the greedy cunts at the top of the firm.

Just because a lawyer operates in the public sector it doesn’t necessarily mean they can’t cut it in the commercial sphere; it could very well mean that money and working in a shiny building aren’t the be all and end all to them - and personally, give me them over some boring commercial corporate **** who’s got the social skills of a cardboard box - and who doubtless takes themselves far too seriously.

 

[Random Precision]

About time Football realised it’s not above the law of the land.

There could be an outcome with City where we go for it, as we have nothing to lose. Probably not, but worth the PL bearing in mind!

I just have a feeling that a legal challenge might not be that far away. If FFP and FMV are deemed to be anti competitive and are swept aside the panic in clubs like your neighbours, Liverpool, Spurs and Arsenal will be a joy to behold.

Re your charges, I’ve always said that you have a nuclear option by challenging FFP especially but hope Newcastle take action first.

 

[Cobwebcat]

I just have a feeling that a legal challenge might not be that far away. If FFP and FMV are deemed to be anti competitive and are swept aside the panic in clubs like your neighbours, Liverpool, Spurs and Arsenal will be a joy to behold.

Re your charges, I’ve always said that you have a nuclear option by challenging FFP especially but hope Newcastle take action first.

The thing that has always confused me is when a team like Everton are punished they should be on City’s side but instead say “what about punishing City too?” Like we are the enemy.

Its like your house gets robbed and instead of calling the cops you say to the robber “don’t forget to rob next door’s house too then everything will be fine”

 

[eastmanc]

The thing that has always confused me is when a team like Everton are punished they should be on City’s side but instead say “what about punishing City too?” Like we are the enemy.

Its like your house gets robbed and instead of calling the cops you say to the robber “don’t forget to rob next door’s house too then everything will be fine”

Your spot on, it's bizarre.

 

[Random Precision]

The thing that has always confused me is when a team like Everton are punished they should be on City’s side but instead say “what about punishing City too?” Like we are the enemy.

Its like your house gets robbed and instead of calling the cops you say to the robber “don’t forget to rob next door’s house too then everything will be fine”

I’ve had this arguement with them. Everton pleaded guilty to the charges therefore their case was dealt with. City are contesting the charges but they don’t, won’t accept that City are entitled to due process and mount a defence.

Their whatabouters were soon out in force as soon as they received their 10pt deduction. Scouse Mackems as we call them, behave exactly the same as our near and dearest, you should have a read of their main forum RTG, if you want a good laugh that is.

 

[Rory Bluelow]

I think you are being a little unkind to public sector lawyers. There are plenty of very good, and some exceptional lawyers in the public sector (those who draft legalisation being one such example). There are plenty of legal professionals who eschew the corporate world with all the associated demands on their time and the pressure from cunty senior partners to bill for every fucking second on the clock - and they choose to have a lower salary in order that they can have a more appropriate work/life balance.

I think this is especially true of many female lawyers with childcare responsibilities in the public sector who simply don’t want to be working weekends and into the evening on weekdays to satisfy the greedy cunts at the top of the firm.

Just because a lawyer operates in the public sector it doesn’t necessarily mean they can’t cut it in the commercial sphere; it could very well mean that money and working in a shiny building aren’t the be all and end all to them - and personally, give me them over some boring commercial corporate **** who’s got the social skills of a cardboard box - and who doubtless takes themselves far too seriously.

I’m acquainted with a couple of public sector lawyers and they are indeed very capable, but seeking the right work/life balance as a priority. Having said that, they're probably not upto the standard of those at Links, Clifford Chance or Freshfields etc but definitely shouldn’t be underestimated !

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

People pinning their hopes on an independent regulator are going to be very disappointed. As a government agency it will be filled with what are, essentially, civil servants. Its internal lawyers will be the kind of lawyers who wouldn't be employed by the private sector, and should they outsource their legal work, it will only be at government rates which immediately loses the interest of the big-hitters. Furthermore, the government can't afford to lose contentious cases either politically or financially, so will strenuously avoid making decisions that will be challenged and taking only the very lowest hanging fruit.

The government have great difficulty disqualifying ordinary company directors, the idea that a civil servant on £50k a year is going to go to Court to stop a billionaire owning a top club is utterly fanciful, much less that the regulator is going to challenge anything that the PL does.

In practice, all it will try to do is "redistribute" the money earned by the highest levels of the game, to...er..."more equitable" causes.

All true. But is it better than the current corrupt cabal

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I’m acquainted with a couple of public sector lawyers and they are indeed very capable, but seeking the right work/life balance as a priority. Having said that, they're probably not upto the standard of those at Links, Clifford Chance or Freshfields etc but definitely shouldn’t be underestimated !

That’s fair comment about the Magic Circle firms because the bar is exceptionally high to get into those firms (as is the requirement to prostitute yourself) although not, in my experience, when it comes to social skills, empathy or personality.

And tbf, that wasn’t the test that @Newman Noggs set, which was simply the private sector more generally, which I think was both unfair and wrong.

 

[Blue Maverick]

 

[Newman Noggs]

I think you are being a little unkind to public sector lawyers. There are plenty of very good, and some exceptional lawyers in the public sector (those who draft legalisation being one such example). There are plenty of legal professionals who eschew the corporate world with all the associated demands on their time and the pressure from cunty senior partners to bill for every fucking second on the clock - and they choose to have a lower salary in order that they can have a more appropriate work/life balance.

I think this is especially true of many female lawyers with childcare responsibilities in the public sector who simply don’t want to be working weekends and into the evening on weekdays to satisfy the greedy cunts at the top of the firm.

Just because a lawyer operates in the public sector it doesn’t necessarily mean they can’t cut it in the commercial sphere; it could very well mean that money and working in a shiny building aren’t the be all and end all to them - and personally, give me them over some boring commercial corporate **** who’s got the social skills of a cardboard box - and who doubtless takes themselves far too seriously.

Loved the last line.

As regards the rest, I guess we can only talk from our personal experience. My experience of instructing both public and private sector lawyers, is that, financial considerations permitting, I would choose the latter to act for me every time.

You point about good and bad is true, of course, and applies across the working population as a whole but, frankly, the personal work/life balance of the person I'm instructing matters less to me than their commitment to winning my case.