PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

I would imagine acting in bad faith is a key part of the PL's conspiracy case. Without it, I am not sure they can even talk of a conspiracy case.

But what do I know? :)
In the absence of the specific carve outs to the statute of limitations points, bad faith in isolation would not break the SoL. And it can be distinguished from fraud. Clearly, if fraud then it is also bad faith but not vice versa necessarily (I would argue).
 
I’d suggest hacking another club’s scouting database would quite clearly be classed as “bad faith”, but clearly the PL deem that normal practice, dependent only on who hacked and who got hacked.
It is subjective to be sure, there are definite bad faith actions, and definite not bad faith actions, but the borderland between them is very fuzzy. I guess that’s what judges are for - to make that call.

Manchester City's fault was in settling out of court and agreeing to a settlement, The Premier League did not get involved because of this, In “Good Faith” Liverpool has not done Manchester City any favours after this event, The City coach incident, the coins incidents, the spitting incident all gone unpunished,
 
In the absence of the specific carve outs to the statute of limitations points, bad faith in isolation would not break the SoL. And it can be distinguished from fraud. Clearly, if fraud then it is also bad faith but not vice versa necessarily (I would argue).
Different question, but as you're 'around'...

Will witness evidence be given by video link or will people be seen arriving at the venue to testify in person?

I'm just wondering if we will be seeing people like Mancini arriving Pannick style in the days and weeks ahead.
 
There are strictly defined costs that can be deducted in the rules. Legal fees isn't one of them.

There is a possibility on Form 3a to explain how the numbers provided haven't been prepared in accordance with the rules, but that sounds like a breach to me ;)

View attachment 132153

View attachment 132154
Thanks for that makes interesting reading. I'm sure they will close the loophole, sorry, clarify the rules before anybody else decides to use them. They may delay taking such action of course if the red dippers or arse need to avail themselves of the current wording :-)
 
Different question, but as you're 'around'...

Will witness evidence be given by video link or will people be seen arriving at the venue to testify in person?

I'm just wondering if we will be seeing people like Mancini arriving Pannick style in the days and weeks ahead.
In person by default but plenty remote I suspect. There is a back door it seems so don't expect to see witnesses coming and going
 
My seemingly sensible brother in law (rag) is convinced if we “get let off” its because we bribed “The FA”.

This is what we are up against.
I asked him what the fuck its got to do with the FA anyway and how any bribe would go down.

He just said “money talks”

:))
Also this. Can’t fit the replies in but needless to say stupid is as stupid does. That didn’t look at the account, just presumed its sky sports and off they went, venting their anger.

IMG_7054.jpeg
 
I watched The Athletic YouTube channel video about "what punishment will City get?"

Video truthfully wasn't as bad as I was expecting, still was bad mind you, but at least they mostly included "if".

They did address, very briefly, what will City do if/when we win the case. They seemed to think City would be happy to just let it go and move on

I find that madness.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.