PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[slbsn]

The bit I highlighted, or in general?

Last sentence

 

[SilverFox2]

I thinks it's fair to say that legal opinion on here should only be listened to if @slbsn gives it. Or @Chris in London or @petrusha or @gordondaviesmoustache (if sober).

Accounting opinions and ITK opinions, though, fill yer boots.

Thanks for reply.

I think all the members you mention say that they have been confounded when a cast iron case goes against them and I fear even their certainty may not be guaranteed.

Regarding accountancy at least that discusses mathematics together with the law that tells us how to use the numbers and can be verified whereas legal matters discuss words and seem to endlessly complicate themselves.

 

[slbsn]

I think it’s a piece by a global law firm, presumably by someone with an interest in football, that lays out the facts in a reasonably readable order (for the layman) and has some opinions on what the potential reasonings of the IC might be, and the potential consequences (either way).
I doubt it has anymore info than people like @slbsn , @Prestwich_Blue et al (as usual apologies to anybody else not mentioned on the legal/accounting side who contributes so well on this thread) already know, but it was a large piece by a global legal firm that seems to have flown under the radar when it was published. The highlighted paragraph and final sentence is what really caught my eye

It is generally sound, but the final sentence is simply wrong.

 

[feelymcfeel]

@gordondaviesmoustache (if sober).

We'll sooner get a verdict.

 

[slbsn]

Stefan seems to agree with this.

I really am confused, several times the legal opinions on this thread give absolute definite opinions which I would normally completely accept then on occasions the same legal authorities say a judge may think differently despite this certainty.

When is "certain" certain or is all legal opinion shrouded in doubt.?

It is certain certain. Commission can be by majority. And no dissenting views are published.

 

[Blue Lemon]

From September, legal documentation of the process.
Cant remember seeing it posted before, apologies if it has been discussed before.

Manchester City v The Premier League: What happens next in the “115 charges” litigation?

Manchester City Football Club (City or the Club) and the Premier League are embroiled in a dispute involving 115 alleged breaches of the Premier League Rules (the Rule or Rules). These charges predominantly concern Manchester City’s financial reporting.

www.nortonrosefulbright.com

Looks to me like a thinly disguised advert by nortonrosefulbright to other premier league clubs who might want to sue City.

 

[JASR]

Looks to me like a thinly disguised advert by nortonrosefulbright to other premier league clubs who might want to sue City.

Probably find out it’s an entire website and company legal framework setup by thetragictwat, just for that purpose…

Note: an interesting point on TTT he changed, awhile ago, his X banner pic from a meme pic with ‘I want them to know it was me’ (or similar) alluding to City being found ‘guilty’. He had it for a longtime.
He’s also unpinned his ‘definitive 115’ post thread, after that being there for a very long time. Following in his footsteps about his current claims regarding the (non) delay in City publishing accounts, I’ll 90% confidentially report that the plank’s he’s built his persona on are starting to shake…

 

[slbsn]

The first victim of Tim Lewis' removal is.... anchoring

 

[SilverFox2]

It is certain certain. Commission can be by majority. And no dissenting views are published.View attachment 175296

Thanks for highlighted area in attachment.
What would be the legal term for being able to produce such evidence rather than it being strong opinion?

 

[willipp]

It is certain certain. Commission can be by majority. And no dissenting views are published.View attachment 175296

Will we be told its a majority or unanimous decision?

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

Will we be told it’s a majority or unanimous decision?

Given the length of time it’s taking, it’ll most likely be unanimous. I’d imagine it will be presented as such, regardless though.

 

[BlueAnorak]

You are joking!

I read somewhere that it kind of depends on the year that the charge relates too, so no I am not.

 

[slbsn]

Will we be told its a majority or unanimous decision?

No

 

[pepguardiola'smoustache]

Regarding accountancy at least that discusses mathematics together with the law that tells us how to use the numbers and can be verified whereas legal matters discuss words and seem to endlessly complicate themselves.

An accountant's opinion is not always fully trustworthy, though.

A lawyer, an accountant and a mathematician are on a train that has just gone over the border into scotland. when they see a brown cow in a field ...

Lawyer: Look, the cows in scotland are brown.

Accountant: Incorrect, all you can say with any certainty is one cow in scotland is brown.

Mathematician: You are both incorrect, all we can logically state is that in scotland there is at least one cow, one side of which appears to be brown.

 

[KS55]

An accountant's opinion is not always fully trustworthy, though.

A lawyer, an accountant and a mathematician are on a train that has just gone over the border into scotland. when they see a brown cow in a field ...

Lawyer: Look, the cows in scotland are brown.

Accountant: Incorrect, all you can say with any certainty is one cow in scotland is brown.

Mathematician: You are both incorrect, all we can logically state is that in scotland there is at least one cow, one side of which appears to be brown.

The Marketing man said: “You are all pissed. That is an elephant.”

 

[dadnlad]

We probably have with the sponsorships and accounts ;-)

at last a reply from one of three man panel

 

[Plays By Sense Of Smell]

Thanks for reply.

I think all the members you mention say that they have been confounded when a cast iron case goes against them and I fear even their certainty may not be guaranteed.

Regarding accountancy at least that discusses mathematics together with the law that tells us how to use the numbers and can be verified whereas legal matters discuss words and seem to endlessly complicate themselves.

Problem is, the laws that govern accountancy are made of...words!
(And are thus always potentially open to interpretation).

 

[Plays By Sense Of Smell]

Probably find out it’s an entire website and company legal framework setup by thetragictwat, just for that purpose…

Note: an interesting point on TTT he changed, awhile ago, his X banner pic from a meme pic with ‘I want them to know it was me’ (or similar) alluding to City being found ‘guilty’. He had it for a longtime.
He’s also unpinned his ‘definitive 115’ post thread, after that being there for a very long time. Following in his footsteps about his current claims regarding the (non) delay in City publishing accounts, I’ll 90% confidentially report that the plank’s he’s built his persona on are starting to shake…

He may have realised that he soon might have to walk them...

 

[halfcenturyup]

Thanks for reply.

I think all the members you mention say that they have been confounded when a cast iron case goes against them and I fear even their certainty may not be guaranteed.

Regarding accountancy at least that discusses mathematics together with the law that tells us how to use the numbers and can be verified whereas legal matters discuss words and seem to endlessly complicate themselves.

I was talking about their opinions on the law and on legal process to which we should always listen. But I can't think of one who has stated an outcome to this case with any certainty. I wouldn't expect any different, though, - lawyers seldom give a definitive answer on outcomes for the reason you stated.

Oh, and accountancy is much more than maths but I won't take it personally :)

 

[halfcenturyup]

I read somewhere that it kind of depends on the year that the charge relates too, so no I am not.

Which year required unanimous disciplinary panel decisions? As far as I am aware it has always been by a majority. I even looked up Section R of the 2009/10 rulebook - majority.