PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[StillBluessinceHydeRoad]

I'd defer to the opinion of our resident legal eagles on this (preferably after they've sobered up following a morning in the small claims court) but if an email said something like "As discussed, I recorded that £50m ADUG cash as commercial revenue, rather than the equity investment it should have been" then I suspect the onus would be very much on us to prove we did nothing wrong.

Such an email certainly wouldn't do our case any good! I think, however that you're raising a rather academic point about the validity/reliability etc of email evidence as a whole which I suspect is rather like hearsay evidence with the difference that hearsay evidence doesn't come from the horse's mouth! I suspect that Sheikh Mansour or Khaldoon would have throttled any employee unwise enough to have composed such an email! And that's not hearsay evidence untii someone can produce a body! So I hope you haven't provoked multiple nervous breakdowns on BM!

 

[CC1]

I'd defer to the opinion of our resident legal eagles on this (preferably after they've sobered up following a morning in the small claims court) but if an email said something like "As discussed, I recorded that £50m ADUG cash as commercial revenue, rather than the equity investment it should have been" then I suspect the onus would be very much on us to prove we did nothing wrong.

Our chief says he has irrefutable evidence
:-)

 

[Kinkys Left Foot]

Where are all the clowns with pens who touted we would be desperate to "do a deal" prior to the hearing.

Although we are not quite at the "steps of the court" stage its certainly squeaky bum time for the protagonists, if they truly know their case isn't that strong. I suspect both parties are now committed to the arbitration process and neither are likely to ask for or give any quarter. Its a fight to the death now.

I cannot see how City don't prevail on the major issues. Mainly because I believe we didn't do what they have accused us of, let alone believe such evidence exists to prove otherwise and that they therefore cannot prove fraud, mistake or concealment for the time barred issues. The case might well fall away like a poorly made layer cake as each rebuttal is satisfactorily evidenced.

That leaves some fumbling about for evidence to prove some none co-operation for which there is no sporting sanction.

I'm feeling bullish today.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

Liverpool and Arsenal are in “severe decline”?

Stand corrected. I was a tad optimistic. What I wanted to suggest was that their political power behind the scenes is not what it once was. No Wenger at Arsenal is better for City. Jim Ratcliffe is trying to improve relations with City. FSG seem less aggressive off the pitch and the new LFC boss likes us. This is a change in the dynamic. Of course the 115 result could settle it one way or another.

 

[mad4city]

Mad to think that's about what Mansour paid for is in 2008.

About 4% of the clubs current valuation

Mad isn't it

Kinda dilutes the whole "sportswashing" accusation, doesn't it?

 

[Kinkys Left Foot]

In the aftermath of Watergate, there was a proposal that a senior Senator should listen to the tapes recorded by Nixon. The name suggested was Senator Stennis, and when the White House spokesman announced this, he started to justify the selection, saying "Senator Stennis was selected because he's...." at which point one wag in the press corps shouted "Deaf!"

You do wonder, having seen Professor Haas's minority opinion, despite having listened to the same evidence that the other two members of the panel listened to, whether that applied to him as well.

I believe you are mistaken in identifying the particular sensory debillitation from which Herr Haas was suffering and it is in fact his sight that was the problem. Either his "one eyed" perception of the case in total or his selective blindness in viewing the evidence before him. In either case, fuck him.

 

[hello]

Is it possible his background as an academic rather than business is why UEFA selected him?

So because he was a skint academic (That's what they tell us anyhow) He was always going to side with the organisation paying him a fucking fortune.

 

[Paladin]

That was the panel member chosen by UEFA so not too much of a surprise there.

I realised that, but you have to question the integrity of the panelist, if they just vote according to their sponsor's wishes, rather than according to the evidence.

 

[halfcenturyup]

I'd defer to the opinion of our resident legal eagles on this (preferably after they've sobered up following a morning in the small claims court) but if an email said something like "As discussed, I recorded that £50m ADUG cash as commercial revenue, rather than the equity investment it should have been" then I suspect the onus would be very much on us to prove we did nothing wrong.

Good points, well made.

 

[mancboy]

I'd defer to the opinion of our resident legal eagles on this (preferably after they've sobered up following a morning in the small claims court) but if an email said something like "As discussed, I recorded that £50m ADUG cash as commercial revenue, rather than the equity investment it should have been" then I suspect the onus would be very much on us to prove we did nothing wrong.

The only problem there is that given how the emails were obtained it would be almost impossible to ascertain that the emails were the original emails and not doctored in any way, so even with the metadata of the emails it would be extremely hard to present them and only them of evidence of wrongdoing you would basically have to have video footage of someone typing the email with a copy of the days paper next to him to confirm that those emails had not been doctored in anyway.