PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[El Gringo]

Like I’ve said, I could email you now saying Ive just bummed Michelle Keegan in her city kit. I could go into deep detail about it.

But if I didn’t bum her, and there’s evidence I didn’t, ie she says it never happened she’s never even met me before, the emails don’t mean anything.

It’s the actual action carried out (or not) that matters not an email.

Best analogy award 2024

 

[Prophet of Doom]

Should that be quelle surprise or were the journos actually forming an orderly queue ?

Ha probably both ! Autocorrect didn’t like quelle !

 

[Silva2021]

Ok, I’ll bite on this and know doubt get stick for not being super confident, fun at parties or simply a rag/ bin dipper.

CAS we won and we heard snippets, such as first day unsure, but quite a few indicated second day had gone well and if I remember right 3rd day finished early.

We have agreed to a 12 week trail with the PL, the legal team will be aware of our evidence/ witness statements and also there’s,

Yes, they are on the clock and probably not fully against stringing it out, but they are also professional.

There has to be A LOT more to this one then CAS.

The idea the PL have no evidence seems unlikely.

 

[Champions again in 2012]

Some might even describe it as a 'well of oil' - or even an oil well. ;)

Oil's well that ends well

 

[SWP's back]

Gloryhunters:)

I know right, there is a part of me that judges them but it’s smaller than the part of me proud to see my little club so well supported by kids who will never know the charms of Dog Shit Alley or the Clarendon.

 

[WRicko]

Which emails were these that "admit" the allegations? I have seen emails and attachments that talk about AD sponsorships as "shareholder funding" and I have seen the emails where Pearce takes it on himself to "arrange" some payments having stated to CAS that he had categorically never arranged any payments.

Are you thinking of any other emails?

What you have seen emails that show disguised equity funding ? And prove the allegations that’s a new one

 

[Son of Merv]

.
...As for non cooperation City strived might and main to restrict the information they were required to provide including an application to the Commercial Court and subsequent appeal, both of which they lost but if subsequently City did provide the information having effectively been obliged to do so by the Court’s decision then at worst they could be deemed to have employed delaying tactics and may be subject to a penalty under the good faith provisions of the EPL...

The judge in the appeal noted that the PL had submitted that our challenge via the court case had been 'tactical', but neither the original Merits Judge or the subsequent appeal court 'made any such findings'.
Part of the judges reasoning for finding against our appeal (against disclosure of the existence of the court case) was that City had a 'legitimate interest in ensuring a fair procedure' was being followed and he therefore found it 'difficult to see' how making the existence of the dispute public would lead to any real prejudice...

If the PL's non-cooperation charge is based on us taking that dispute to court, and we have subsequently abided with the court ruling, two judges have pretty much already said it was in our interest to seek clarification and dismissed the PL claim that we were doing it for tactical reasons.

 

[Blue_Lightsaber]

The idea the PL have no evidence seems unlikely.

If they had the evidence why did they wait 5 years to bring charges?

 

[Kinkys Left Foot]

The only evidence likely to uphold the serious charges against City will have been in City or Etihads hands or their accountants.

Does anyone think, if it did exist, we would meekly hand it over on request to Masters and the cartel when denial of its very existence is sufficient and likely unimpeachable.

 

[halfcenturyup]

From what I remember, the issue around Pearce was him telling CAS that he hadn't arranged a payment.
The emails appeared to show him telling how the payment should be made.

I read it as different interpretation in what 'arranging' meant, and didn't think it would be hard to negate any questions.

That was my view as well. Pearce is a smart guy with smart lawyers. He will be able to explain why there is no contradiction between him categorically not "arranging" any payments whilst at the same time "arranging" payments in some emails. The other issues raised, while seeming to be incriminating, can also be explained reasonably despite Twat/Harris not being able to think of a single one.

As ever, the much more persuasive evidence is what can be proven by the actual accounting.