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.I raised a similar point earlier.
“Bad faith” seems such an abstract concept how would you prove what someone’s intentions were?
And how would you even measure it?
Doesn't the entire time Mancini was at City predate the rules the PL have charged us with?The Mancini charge will almost certainly be time barred from what I've been led to understand
Yeah something as well like for the good of football we need an arsenal win ..One hundred percent. Arsenal all that’s good, City all that’s wrong etc etc
That’s what I thought as well..Doesn't the entire time Mancini was at City predate the rules the PL have charged us with?
It does but that’s not the objective. The idea is to give the impression everything we have done or achieved in the last decade and a half was through cheating. It’s been a very successful smear campaign.Doesn't the entire time Mancini was at City predate the rules the PL have charged us with?
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 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? :)
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.
Different question, but as you're 'around'...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).
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 :-)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
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 goingDifferent 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.