PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Plays By Sense Of Smell]

Could end up like the OJ Simpson trial
Ederson tries to put on a pair of keepers gloves and they don't fit.

If the glove don't fit, you must aquit!

 

[slbsn]

Naive question, but why so many barristers? Do they all have different fields of expertise? Are they each covering different aspects of the case?

For the PL, I'd say it shows there will be a lot of City witnesses the PL will want to cross examine - the senior juniors will need to work on cross examination plans aimed at extracting the answers the PL wants to undermine the credibility of witnesses ie make them look unreliable. In terms of KCs, it is likely because there are so many different areas of law - regulatory, civil fraud, accounting issues etc. For example Philip Marshall KC for City is a civil fraud specialist.

 

[BlueMooner87]

Is it still the case the hearing will take months with decision not announced until next year at earliest?

 

[khoitnm]

Having read the CAS outcome when it came out, I cannot see how the substantive charges can be proven considering they adjudged there was no evidence. The bar is high and if the PL have 'evidence' of serious fraud, then they would have been duty bound to inform the SFO.

Many of the other charges will likely be disputed on technical grounds such as Mancini's contract which was signed before the PL introduced FFP rules so how can City breach rules that did not exist.

I can't see this being anything other than a big fine for not cooperating and some points deducted for possible procedural breaches which will probably be appealed in the same way Leicester won their case.

As for 100 point deductions or excluded, only somebody with a low IQ and zero understanding of commercial or corporate litigation really thinks that will happen. We will know soon enough though.

It make me feel much more confident about our future.
But just curious, why there's zero chance that we will get 100 point deductions? (yeah, I actually has zero understanding of commercial and corporate litigation, I have to admit).

 

[Manchester_lalala]

The hearing is very likely to match the timetable set out now. People will be scheduled as witnesses, experts scheduled, written and oral closings booked in. This is a hearing now designed to go a long way - look at the scale of the bundles being in brought in today to supplement the digital document bundle. Look at the number of junior barristers. All points to a long/10-12 week hearing as rumoured.

A bit of a personal question, but I find lawyers fascinating due large amount knowledge they know to master their trade. How confident would you be going against someone like Pannick or the prems leading KC? For example, say if you were on City’s side going against Pannick, would you fancy your chances?

 

[Rammy Blue]

Never has a story received so much interest, so many opinions expressed, so many columns inches and hours of airtime, where the main contributors haven’t the slightest idea what they’re talking about.

With not one iota of balance.

 

[DenisLawBackHeel74]

Doesn't he play for Spuds?

I think ‘play’ isn’t the verb I would use to describe his time in the field for Spursy…

 

[TonyColemansbagofapples]

Could one of the computer geniuses put together a compilation of relevant videos/ photos in one thread (preferably without replies) so that they can be found in one handy, pocket sized thread? Thanks

 

[metalblue]

With not one iota of balance.

Minds are made up now mate. Innocent and we’ve bribed them, corrupt blah blah blah. Guilty and it’s a conspiracy.

It’s gonna be a long few months.

 

[blueste41]

Would love to hear our legal team arguments on the matter, because surely they have some (I admire Pannick for years and read two of his books), but I just think we make grave mistake by not addressing publicly the merits of charges.

Where is Khaldoon, legal, accounting team? Why you leave Pep alone with this shit?

You do not spoil Your standpoint or make a mess or fuss to avoide offending anybody, therein obviously the panel. But also as a lawyer as a ultima ratio you should publicly defend Your Client if hes publicly under fire and total attack. You defend publicly with class and dignity. And to address the claims even at overall level.

Charges have been made public and I dont recall any subsantial, official line of our defense ffs.

We can say in general and ambiguous terms, that they took emails out of context for instance about need of payment by a sponsor because its been in accordance to contract and performance payments, which were happening at regular basis etc. I mean, short summary of whatever we put forward in the pleadings.

Publicity, media attacks you. PL made charges public. You can and should defend yourself appropriately, including to drive the public narrative in Your favour. I just would love to learn the reasoning from our legal team/PR strategists. They are exceptional experts so they would probably come up with something convincing but for now Im angry;)

So in effect give the prosecution prior notice as to what our defence will be allowing them to specifically prepare counter arguments for it? Yeah, great idea!