PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Metal Biker]

PL charge City thread expectations: Updates on the proceedings.

Reality: F O W L E R.

 

[Chris in London]

You can't polish a turd.

true, but you can roll it in glitter

 

[Bill Walker]

Rag

Yes fuck off ya rag twat

Thank you guys, jolly decent and respectful of you both.

x.

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

Thank you guys, jolly decent and respectful of you both.

x.

Ah it’s yourself Bill.
We were just talking about ye.
Lovely guy. Salt of the earth.

 

[AndyP68]

You're obviously taking the piss or dropped a metric fuck tonne of acid!

He played in a crap team who were beneath him. Like Gio. If you viewed him through a current lens it’s different. Never gave ball away. And as a pundit he loved, absolutely f Rodri’s winner.

 

[MCC]

Were the PL expecting that they would have to handover all their emails, whatsApps etc. when they charged City?

 

[Centurions]

Were the PL expecting that they would have to handover all their emails, whatsApps etc. when they charged City?

Since there are 2 or 3 KC's on both sides plus all of their lesser colleagues and this is by all accounts normal practise then I'd go with yes, they would have known.

 

[The Lightbowne Cowboy]

I always thought he was good. Delivered a masterclass in draw at OT I remember?

I don't know about P68, any more nonsense like this and you'll be getting your BM P45. ;-)

 

[Newman Noggs]

Since there are 2 or 3 KC's on both sides plus all of their lesser colleagues and this is by all accounts normal practise then I'd go with yes, they would have known.

Obviously, none of us knows, but I'm not sure I'd agree with that. If it is the case that the PL has been "told" to produce all their emails, Whatsapps etc, involving City and going back to 2009 then it must have been on the application of City. In my experience, the complainant wouldn't routinely make allegations and, then, voluntarily disclose that quantity of material.

Assuming City asked for it, I would have expected lawyers for the PL to push back arguing irrelevance to the charges and/or that the request was disproportionately onerous. They may not have argued anything of the sort, of course, but, in that case, they wouldn't have been needed to be "told". And if the tribunal did order the disclosure, the arbitrators must have been persuaded that the request was neither irrelevant nor disproportionate. That would tell its own story. As usual, we have only a half-baked newspaper report to go on which is a poor starting point.

Indeed, the only part of the case to which this disclosure would be directly relevant, seems to me to be the non-cooperation charges but I guess it also goes to the bona fides of the whole process from decision to investigate, the investigation itself through to the decision to bring charges.

Only time will tell.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Obviously, none of us knows, but I'm not sure I'd agree with that. If it is the case that the PL has been "told" to produce all their emails, Whatsapps etc, involving City and going back to 2009 then it must have been on the application of City. In my experience, the complainant wouldn't routinely make allegations and, then, voluntarily disclose that quantity of material.

Assuming City asked for it, I would have expected lawyers for the PL to push back arguing irrelevance to the charges and/or that the request was disproportionately onerous. They may not have argued anything of the sort, of course, but, in that case, they wouldn't have been needed to be "told". And if the tribunal did order the disclosure, the arbitrators must have been persuaded that the request was neither irrelevant nor disproportionate. That would tell its own story. As usual, we have only a half-baked newspaper report to go on which is a poor starting point.

Indeed, the only part of the case to which this disclosure would be directly relevant, seems to me to be the non-cooperation charges but I guess it also goes to the bona fides of the whole process from decision to investigate, the investigation itself through to the decision to bring charges.

Only time will tell.

That's the thing I didn't get about that report. I wondered if they got confused between the two cases? It's difficult to see how the PL's emails about City would be any sort of defence against the filing of incorrect accounts or off-the-books payments, for example, but they would clearly be relevant if City were trying to show discriminatory behaviour against the club, on APTs for example, maybe having shown some emails they had already obtained (by one means or another). It's annoying as fuck not knowing any more :)