PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[mancboy]

I`d prefer him to say it from the undertakers ... via a medium.

That **** would manage to blame it on the medium if that happened

 

[cibaman]

Just trying to be realistic.

As I've said, I'd be amazed if there is anything incriminating in their official emails and correspondance.

Just as there is nothing incriminating in ours.

I think you’re probably right. I expect there will have been email exchanges between the PL and the investigating body that laid the 115 charges. I expect that most if not all of that will have been perfectly reasonable administrative stuff.

But there’s just a chance that some of the email exchanges might have drifted into unacceptable territory where the PL might be seen to be unduly influencing the investigation. Or where the investigating body displayed bias or preconceived ideas. We can but hope

 

[its grim up north]

I expect it's been covered on here but Stefan isn't getting hugely excited over the disclosure news. His view is that it's just the standard two way disclosure request that is typical in these types of hearings.

I'm no expert but I have a view about this disclosure request. Of course the PL are not going, or are not able, to give every single mail, WhatsApp or text involving City since 2008. But I'm wondering if City already have some "leaked" documents. So when giving evidence the PL can say we have disclosed everything. Then City can respond what about these?

 

[Invisible Man's Bandage]

I'm no expert but I have a view about this disclosure request. Of course the PL are not going, or are not able, to give every single mail, WhatsApp or text involving City since 2008. But I'm wondering if City already have some "leaked" documents. So when giving evidence the PL can say we have disclosed everything. Then City can respond what about these?

I'm absolutely no expert but from what I've seen it is the IC that has requested that both parties supply information as part of standard procedure. I'd be very pleased if that isn't the case of course but it just seems like wishful thinking.

 

[Citizen of Legoland]

I'm no expert but I have a view about this disclosure request. Of course the PL are not going, or are not able, to give every single mail, WhatsApp or text involving City since 2008. But I'm wondering if City already have some "leaked" documents. So when giving evidence the PL can say we have disclosed everything. Then City can respond what about these?

Shhh, don't give the game away.

 

[Whether or not]

The more senior people in organisations are, the more vulnerable they are in disclosure processes, because nobody has oversight of them day to day. Just look at Paula Vennels in the Post Office scandal.
In my career I have seen senior people who were highly intelligent and capable say amazingly incriminating things in emails. Given that Masters consistently appears to be anything but highly intelligent or capable, I can fully understand why we would want access to all emails from the organisation he was running, and why the PL lawyers would oppose it.

 

[JCB001]

If we really wanted to use it, we could even tell you who shot JFK ;)

The woman on the Grassy Knoll

 

[eastmanc]

This is all sidebar stuff. The crux of the matter remains the legality of the APT rules not what someone may have said in a text or email...

I am right in thinking that City aren't against the APT as it was before the February ammendment, we just dont agree with this change and we are fighting this. Or am I wrong?

 

[JewelZee]

I am right in thinking that City aren't against the APT as it was before the February ammendment, we just dont agree with this change and we are fighting this. Or am I wrong?

You are not wrong...

 

[halfcenturyup]

You are not wrong...

Just because the club didn't make a claim until February doesn't mean they don't want the whole thing thrown out. Has anyone who has seen the complaint confirmed it's just about the February changes?