PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Protein Junkie said:
For me there is one of three not two verdicts.
Guilty, innocent or innocent with caveats.
Whilst the first is too much to even think about I would rather not have the third option either. This gave the cartel too much ambiguity and hence the “got away with it due to time barring”.
An unequivocal and Crystal clear innocent could finally break the morale of the bitter and twisted.
Click to expand...
Yep the third option will be difficult to deal with.You can bet the report will be gone through with a fine-tooth comb from all over the world and the label of "cheats getting away with it" will follow us forever. Option two with a clear statement of not guilty is only way we get out of this and be able to move on. If any journalists/media says otherwise we are then free to go to town on them and sue their arses.
 
MisdaH said:
Things that are time barred don't mean that we're guilty of them. They were exactly that....time barred. But I get where you're coming from.
Click to expand...
And if the PL had any courage in their case they could have gone down the fraud route where time barring would not be an issue. there is a good reason for them to stay on this side of the fence
 
ufo said:
I’m sure masters wife is well manicured, long nails and moisturizes from top to bottom while sleeping , meanwhile next to her masters reads his daily newspaper on his pajamas ,turbo wanks and says thank you and good night to his wife
Click to expand...
He has the look of a man who has had a lot of work done himself - the sort of bloke who enjoys weekend spa breaks.
 
slbsn said:
That para refers to this from FTT

50. Paragraph 4.1 of the Terms and Conditions for the 2013 Contract (substantially replicated as paragraph 4.1(a) of the Terms and Conditions for the 2015 Contract) which provides that, "the Services will be rendered to the best of the Company's and the Personnel's abilities and all directions and requests given by BSkyB or its nominees will be complied with." We do not accept Mr Firth's submission that this is to be construed as meaning that Sky is unable to require Mr Thompson to express opinions which he did not believe or otherwise to control what he says or to restrict his opinions. This paragraph is unambiguous and does not make any reference to Mr Thompson's opinions. As such, there is no room for Mr Firth's construction.

Then on Control the FTT concluded (I quoted (5) earlier): View attachment 150333

I've not read in detail but it is only theoretical that Sky could direct Thompson or anyone so HMRC succeeded on that point notwithstanding the reality. Para 51 says "Similarly, given the emphasis on reasonableness elsewhere in the Contract and as part of the factual matrix as a whole, we find that it is so obvious to go without saying that the parties did not intend that Sky be entitled to make or give unreasonable directions and requests. It might well be, therefore, that in practice Mr Thompson would not be obliged to express opinions which he did not believe or otherwise to control what he says or to restrict his opinions. However, this is a feature of such a direction or request being unreasonable and in breach of the implied term rather than being the proper construction of paragraph 4.1 (or paragraph 4.1(a)) itself."


By the way, here is a good example of the chaos that will ensue after the decision is published from people claiming it says one thing and others claiming it says something different - and nobody will know for sure. It is possible to have 2 valid interpretations.
Click to expand...

It certainly is possible to have 2 interpretations, otherwise they wouldn't have been in front of the tax tribunal in the first place.

That said, I'm not so sure it is only a theoretical power. However the clause might be interpreted or enforced, it seems to be established beyond any doubt that the clause actually formed part of Phil Thompson's actual contract with Sky. One assumes that this contract was (a) drafted by Sky/Sky's lawyers, (b) was regularly presented to employees/contributors such as Thompson on a "take it or leave it" basis rather than being a bespoke contract produced following careful negotiation, and (c) the clause was required and inserted by Sky for a reason. One imagines that other regular contributors such as Merson, Le Tissier et al all had similar contracts, and it is not difficult to imagine that at some point or other Sky's producers have invoked that contractual language even if an employment or tax lawyer would assert a "reasonableness" qualification.

Ultimately, of course, all broadcasters have final editorial control over all contributors by virtue of the simple expedient that they can give them the boot if they say things the broadcaster doesn't like (Mike Summerbee's ongoing absence from Sky may be an example of this).

That is not to say Phil Thompson was ever specifically directed by Sky to say X when his true opinion was Y, but again, if that particular contractual requirement is never invoked, one wonders what it was put there for in the first place.
 
mr t said:
He has the look of a man who has had a lot of work done himself - the sort of bloke who enjoys weekend spa breaks.
Click to expand...
100%. That’s why I’ve been calling for pl audit, this **** is spending loads on his leisure, just look at tone of his skin and tell me this **** doesn’t spend money rejuvenating on city’s non cooperative moneys
 
Protein Junkie said:
For me there is one of three not two verdicts.
Guilty, innocent or innocent with caveats.
Whilst the first is too much to even think about I would rather not have the third option either. This gave the cartel too much ambiguity and hence the “got away with it due to time barring”.
An unequivocal and Crystal clear innocent could finally break the morale of the bitter and twisted.
Click to expand...
The worst thing about the "time barring" element is that it was debunked in the Judges' report, which also used the phrase "no evidence" 11 times, but the media wilfully chose to ignore what the Judges said. The "time barring" narrative was apparently pushed out by other PL Club Directors in conversation with journalists. It didn't seem to originate from the UEFA camp. City should have stamped on it. Morons like Carragher are still using it as a mantra. None of these clowns have even bothered to read the published evidence.
 
Tracking back said:
I would imagine they'll have a template for each of the legal aspects including all the relevant subsections.

The points of law are already written. They will need to reference and attach the relevant aspects to each of their findings but that's pretty straightforward for any competent barrister.

Disclaimer: I'm not in the legal profession so don't hold me to that. Otherwise I may have to appeal through the appropriate channels.
Click to expand...
They aren't. (That is, they weren't written before the tribunal started to hear the case. I hope they've finished them by now.)

The tribunal's job will be (a) decide what the facts are, (b) decide what the law is, and (c) apply that law to those facts.

So the tribunal will have to identify what are the relevant propositions of law, identify which are agreed between City and the PL (which is probably most of them if not all) and in the case of any that are not agreed summarise each side's contentions and set out their conclusions in the decision.

There may be cases, and this may be one, where the relevant propositions of law are agreed between the parties and are summarised in an earlier court decision, in which case those summaries can be cut-and-pasted from those previous decisions, but you only know that when you've heard what each party has got to say about a particular point.
 
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