PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Metal Biker]

Again, a total failure on your part, in even the basic ability to just read. I'm sorry, but this is not a worthehile conversation for me.

That's what most people who are wrong tend to say.

It's sunny outside, bru, don't be so bothered about people's opinions on this thread.

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

Regardless of the letters, could it be that certain outlets have heard that City have argued the case to a sufficient degree that the case has no merit?

 

[journolud]

Two reasonably reliable and well regarded members of this forum, @tolmie's hairdoo and @Prestwich_Blue, who both have good track records on this subject, have indicated that there is a high degree of confidence within the club that City will beat the allegations.

On the 'balance of probabilities' I'd say that was reaon for cautious optimism.

Your talk about the presence or absence of 'proof' is irrelevant nonsense.

I’ve dipped in and out a bit but I thought he was saying there was a lack of proof about the alleged letters. While I’m inclined to believe they may have been sent and that this is an indication that we will be cleared of the charges it is all still speculative until we are told for def

 

[Coatigan]

It's sunny outside, bru, don't be so bothered about people's opinions on this ththread.

That's what people that run away with ott conclusions based on an inability to underatand a few sentences tend to say.

 

[Metal Biker]

That's what people that run away with ott conclusions based on an inability to underatand a few sentences tend to say.

You're the one who said it wasn't a worthwhile discussion. Yet you're continuing it...

Let it go, people are allowed to disagree with you.

 

[Coatigan]

You do you and let others do them, then.

Ok, you go celebrating us being cleared, not much need for the thread. I'll point out we haven't been. Till we hopefully are.

 

[BringBackSwales]

More than uncomfortable silence by Goldbridge jrb, i have seen the clip on youtube, Goldbridge quite clearly states that he has been legally threatened.

No he didn’t. What were the exact words that quite clearly stated this?

 

[Coatigan]

Two reasonably reliable and well regarded members of this forum, @tolmie's hairdoo and @Prestwich_Blue, who both have good track records on this subject, have indicated that there is a high degree of confidence within the club that City will beat the allegations.

On the 'balance of probabilities' I'd say that was reaon for cautious optimism.

Your talk about the presence or absence of 'proof' is irrelevant nonsense.

100%. And that is where I am too. That is a balanced way of putting it.

I am not claiming letters havent been sent out, I am not claiming tolmie is lying, I am not even saying I don't believe it. I do. I even pointed out where I perceived a 'mood change'.

What I am saying is those two up to interpretation snippets are not proof as claimed and certainly not that we have been cleared.

It is ironic, that people that have jumped to that conclusion and arguing something I never claimed, are the same people that have run away with other daft conlusions.

 

[Coatigan]

I’ve dipped in and out a bit but I thought he was saying there was a lack of proof about the alleged letters. While I’m inclined to believe they may have been sent and that this is an indication that we will be cleared of the charges it is all still speculative until we are told for def

Bingo.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

The Pl would have to be monumentally inept to bring charges that are clearly time barred. Are their lawyers really so incompetent?

It’s not as straightforward as that. Whether they are time barred is significantly down to the presence (or otherwise) of associated fraud. If there is an absence of civil fraud then the six year limitation period will strictly apply from the date of any alleged breach, whereas if fraud/concealment are verifiably present then the limitation period commences from the date of discovery, or when discovery could reasonably have occurred. That can only be properly established in the presence of relevant evidential material.

The pre-charge narrative appears to have been characterised by the PL, in light of the Der Spiegel allegations, requiring disclosure of this evidence from the club, which the club flatly refused to comply with, as they felt they were not required to (and in fear of it being improperly leaked/shared) following which the PL were left with a choice of letting it go, or pushing the button. Doubtless egged on by certain bad actors in the form of clubs that don’t require any introduction, the PL elected to take the latter option of embarking on a speculative fishing expedition that would require the club to engage in the disclosure they sought, which has seemingly, and unsurprisingly to anyone with any semblance of common sense, garnered the square root of fuck all.

So it’s not the legal advice that was flawed, which would almost certainly have set out the associated risks, but rather the judgement of the senior decision makers at the PL who notwithstanding that advice, allowed that pressure from the foregoing bad actors to corral them into embarking on a course of action that was misconceived and seemingly doomed to failure from the outset.

They have erroneously called the club’s bluff and are left to deal with the consequences.