PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Toranaga sama said:
This leak can only come from 1 of the 3 parties involved in this legal dispute.

IC: I don't think they are the source of this leak. It's highly unlikely to me and I wonder what they would gain from this leaking.

City: We have seen previously that City doesn't have the habit of leaking something to the press when there is an investigation going on. We saw the same pattern from City with UEFA, CAS and PL. And if we were to leak something then surely we would hand our news material to someone else, sure not to Matt Lawton (the massive ****) from The Times who with his buddy Matthew Syed and Martyn Ziegler consistently slagging us. And if we decide to leak something with a high magnitude then the obvious choice would be Martin Samuel or Simon Mullock. That's why I just don't see City leaking this.

Premier League: The usual suspect. I am certain that they are the source. As we have already seen in the past week from Matt Lawton's reports on our legal action against PL. Either PL is a direct source or PL made the arrangement via 3rd party like Arsenal. Either way, they are the source.

Now the question is what PL can achieve from this leak and what was their motivation...? I don't have the answer for that. Maybe someone can enlighten me.
Click to expand...
To damn us in the Court of public opinion.
To be fair they've been pretty good since the charges were laid, but since we won the PL they've been abysmal.
The question is why? Do they know they've lost?
 
Whether or not said:
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.
Click to expand...

Look at Garry Cook he’s been in some important positions at places like Nike, City, UFC and currently at Birmingham City. He fell on his sword accidently copyingNedum Onuha’s mum into an email mocking her having cancer. People can be stupid with their communications within a business, if you don’t want it being used against you at some point in the future don’t document or record it in any shape or form. I wonder if there’s anything knocking around mocking the ethnicity of Mansour or Khaldoon from the Premier League or execs of other clubs?
 
halfcenturyup said:
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?
Click to expand...
The ammendments weren't approved till 9th of Feb so couldn't be challenged till then.

Premier League may face legal action from club over third-party rules | Premier League | The Guardian

The Premier League may face a new legal challenge from one of its own clubs after approving new rules related to third-party transactions
amp.theguardian.com amp.theguardian.com
 
ganganvince said:
The ammendments weren't approved till 9th of Feb so couldn't be challenged till then.

Premier League may face legal action from club over third-party rules | Premier League | The Guardian

The Premier League may face a new legal challenge from one of its own clubs after approving new rules related to third-party transactions
amp.theguardian.com amp.theguardian.com
Click to expand...

Yes. But the club abstained from the vote on the 2021 rules on the grounds they could be illegal. It would be strange to want the latest rules overturned but not ones the club previously thought could be illegal. The new rules were just the straw that broke the camel's back, I think.
 
eastmanc said:
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?
Click to expand...
I don't know whether we like the pre Feb rules, but the objection we have raised regards the changes
 
Whether or not said:
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.
Click to expand...
This is totally true from my direct experience (including involvment in some very big legal cases). The higher up the food chain the more complacent people are with their tech/comms. Middle managers know making a blunder could kill their career. Those at Director-level just think they are invincible and answerable to no one. This pattern is repeated again and again if you look at some of the many scandals over the years.
 
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
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.