PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[foggy1974]

Funny how little the human rights issue gets mentioned any more in the media or social media, it's all about 115 and nothing else. Almost as though those talking about human rights abuses in the Middle East weren't very interested in those issues at all except as a kneejerk criticism of a football team they didn't support.

The rags & their hypocritical fans put paid to most of that when they wanted Qatari money

 

[ayrshire_blue]

I sent an email to my mate telling him I was going to bum Michelle Keegan in her city kit.

Must have happened.

Not to piss on an obvious joke on your part, but the emails in question state that we've already done X, not that we plan to do it.

Unless I'm badly misreading the situation which is possible, we will have to explain why those emails exist if we didn't actually do X. I can't think of a plausible explanation but I trust that we have one. If we don't provide an explanation, the balance of probabilities suggest we've done exactly as we've admitted to doing on the emails.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

The Law Society Gazette

Welcome to The Law Society Gazette - publication of record to solicitors in England and Wales since 1903

www.lawgazette.co.uk

Extract from an article in the Law Society Gazette which I hope (I’m an FOC) should be accessible via the link above for anyone interested.
“The sports silk who led Leicester City’s successful challenge against football’s Premier League over the club’s finances has voiced concern that the league criticised its own decision-making panel of eminent lawyers after losing the case. Nick De Marco KC of Blackstone Chambers has also warned sports watchdogs not to ‘make up the rules as they go along’, calling for more ‘clarity and certainty’ in the drafting of regulations”

That’s hilarious. It’s rare for any organisation to criticise its own legally appointed team in public. Utterly bizarre. It seems to confirm my long-held view that the simplest explanation for the whole saga could be just that Masters and his close circle of cronies are just incredibly stupid.

 

[eastmanc]

Not to piss on an obvious joke on your part, but the emails in question state that we've already done X, not that we plan to do it.

Unless I'm badly misreading the situation which is possible, we will have to explain why those emails exist if we didn't actually do X. I can't think of a plausible explanation but I trust that we have one. If we don't provide an explanation, the balance of probabilities suggest we've done exactly as we've admitted to doing on the emails.

We provided one at CAS.

 

[M18CTID]

Not to piss on an obvious joke on your part, but the emails in question state that we've already done X, not that we plan to do it.

Unless I'm badly misreading the situation which is possible, we will have to explain why those emails exist if we didn't actually do X. I can't think of a plausible explanation but I trust that we have one. If we don't provide an explanation, the balance of probabilities suggest we've done exactly as we've admitted to doing on the emails.

I thought we explained all that at CAS? Well, certainly for the e-mails that were under scrutiny at CAS. They accepted our explanation, hence us winning the appeal.

The e-mails themselves can be interpreted a multitude of different ways. Sure, they can look bad if you interpret them a certain way, but there are plausible explanations that have already been put forward and accepted. In fact, it's utterly ludicrous and downright stupid to think that we'd have employed disguised owner funding to make up most of the Etihad deal because there literally was no need to ever do that as the perfectly legal route of using central funds was available to us, which is what we demonstrated at CAS.

 

[Sofiablu]

We provided one at CAS.

For those of us that can’t remember the details (and lots of other things these days!) can somebody explain in simple terms how we explained our way out of these “problem” emails. Ta.

 

[eastmanc]

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.

There will be a paper trail of emails which show the context of that one email.

 

[meltonblue]

For those of us that can’t remember the details (and lots of other things these days!) can somebody explain in simple terms how we explained our way out of these “problem” emails. Ta.

Ultimately we did it by witnesses going on the record saying that the actions alluded to in the mails didn’t happen. That and backed it up with some audit and financial evidence to support it.

 

[eastmanc]

I thought we explained all that at CAS? Well, certainly for the e-mails that were under scrutiny at CAS. They accepted our explanation, hence us winning the appeal.

The e-mails themselves can be interpreted a multitude of different ways. Sure, they can look bad if you interpret them a certain way, but there are plausible explanations that have already been put forward and accepted. In fact, it's utterly ludicrous and downright stupid to think that we'd have employed disguised owner funding to make up most of the Etihad deal because there literally was no need to ever do that as the perfectly legal route of using central funds was available to us, which is what we demonstrated at CAS.

If City were to have done what we are being accused of the last thing we would have done would be to leave behind a trail of emails to show our guilt to everyone.
Wouldn't we have been a lot more careful than that.

 

[M12Blue]

Funny how little the human rights issue gets mentioned any more in the media or social media, it's all about 115 and nothing else. Almost as though those talking about human rights abuses in the Middle East weren't very interested in those issues at all except as a kneejerk criticism of a football team they didn't support.

They’ll be back when we are cleared