PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[gordondaviesmoustache]

The fact that something is in a Bill/Act doesn’t mean it is automatically enforceable at court if, for example it amounts to a restraint of trade or otherwise is against public policy. On such niceties are lawyer’s fortunes made, See Pannick and the prorogation of parliament.
Parliament (via treasury counsel) needs to be very aware of the wording of the bill to overcome certain possible objections. This issue is meat and drink to Human Rights lawyers.

Spoke to a private practice solicitor recently who was responsible for helping draft some legislation a few years back, who told me the Parliamentary draftsmen are top class lawyers. Only seriousl smart graduates need apply. They have to be in the job for at least five years before they get directly involved in drafting legislation.

It’s a huge deal when you think about it!

 

[Dribble]

If it were up to me I’d say something.

Now how many times have I wished I’d just kept my powder dry & realise I’d made things worse….. maybe they are right after all.

Haha... Sometimes silence speaks louder than words mate. Regardless of what we say, opposition fans & the media pundits who want us gone would only reply with "Well they would say that, wouldn't they".

City giving a running commentary is pointless imo. Leave the fuckers to believe what they want & trust that we'll win out at the end of the process.

This witchhunt seems as politically futile as Joe Biden's Congressional hearings for taking bribes, where after 15 months of hearings, MAGA haven't offered a shred of evidence.

Having a cat in hell's chance of proving anything was never MAGA's plan. They're merely trying to besmirch Biden's name & character enough to cause voter doubt, along with electoral & reputational damage, & I see the PL's pursuit of us being just as futile, but with the same reputational damage intent.

Fuckin bastards!

 

[halfcenturyup]

The fact that something is in a Bill/Act doesn’t mean it is automatically enforceable at court if, for example it amounts to a restraint of trade or otherwise is against public policy. On such niceties are lawyer’s fortunes made, See Pannick and the prorogation of parliament.
Parliament (via treasury counsel) needs to be very aware of the wording of the bill to overcome certain possible objections. This issue is meat and drink to Human Rights lawyers.

Just on this again, the legal analysis of the Bill I posted earlier said this: "Placing this on a statutory footing will avoid competition law challenges to the prohibition". Although they do add a footnote: "Though there may be other challenges based on international treaties etc".

Don't know how true any of that is. Not my area of expertise.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Just on this again, the legal analysis of the Bill I posted earlier said this: "Placing this on a statutory footing will avoid competition law challenges to the prohibition". Although they do add a footnote: "Though there may be other challenges based on international treaties etc".

Don't know how true any of that is. Not my area of expertise.

It’s possible that we’ve finally found a Brexit benefit!

 

[117 M34]

City spending £300m on the stadium so obviously don't think there's a risk of being found guilty.
Rags appointing berrada as CEO so they don't think there is a risk of city being guilty.
Etihad opening the books for the world to see so they don't have anything to hide.

Only one way this is going.

 

[Sk@mcfc]

Can’t wait for Simon prick Jordan to give us his not withstanding that answer to the Etihad stock exchange news

 

[inchy14]

I’m @TeamGDM

I like him.

 

[give it to gordon]

Just seen that Etihad Airways are thinking of going on the stock market thingy. Apparently that is good news for us because it means Etihad Airways accounts will be open to everyone.

The article states that Etihad Airways wouldn't be doing this if they had committed fraud with City in the sponsorship deal.

City sponsors' plan deals big twist amid Premier League's 115 financial charges

Manchester City are facing 115 charges from the Premier League for breaking financial regulations but the club's owners could potentially navigate the charges with a fresh idea

www.mirror.co.uk

 

[manimanc]

Thanks for sharing. Interesting content, but what an utterly crass headline title for this article. Total clickbait material.

"Man City owners hatch new plan to combat threat of Premier League's 115 financial charges"

Surely the IPO decision is up to Etihad's owners, not Man City's, and secondly if there is nowt to hide, which I am sure is the case, our evidence will be enough to combat the ridiculous charges from the PL.

Maybe something like this will stop the case from dragging on until 2027.

 

[Rammy Blue]

Just seen that Etihad Airways are thinking of going on the stock market thingy. Apparently that is good news for us because it means Etihad Airways accounts will be open to everyone.

The article states that Etihad Airways wouldn't be doing this if they had committed fraud with City in the sponsorship deal.

City sponsors' plan deals big twist amid Premier League's 115 financial charges

Manchester City are facing 115 charges from the Premier League for breaking financial regulations but the club's owners could potentially navigate the charges with a fresh idea

www.mirror.co.uk

Oh for the good old days of the Titanic pics….