PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[gordondaviesmoustache]

What if he (and others) decline to be cross examined?

I think you’re getting it the wrong way round mate.

Each party will have submitted a number of witness statements from individual witnesses to advance their case. The opposing side will then either agree the statement because it contains nothing they want to challenge (because there is nothing controversial or it is expedient not to do so) in which case the witness will not be required to attend, but otherwise the assumption is that the witness will be tendered for cross examination, which means attending to give live evidence and being asked questions on the content of their statement, and other matters that are within their knowledge.


It’s not normally obligatory for a witness to attend in this setting (although I think there is the power to compel a witness to do so via the High Court, it is unlikely to be exercised here) and if they don’t then hearsay being permissible the witness statement is admissible as evidence but little weight will be attached to it, as the other side has not had the opportunity to challenge its contents via cross examination.

If they do attend then the other side will have the opportunity to cross examine them. If they don’t answer the question (a tediously common refrain) then the advocate (if they are any good) will simply ask it again until they get an answer, or the tribunal intervenes, and so as a consequence of their failure to answer questions that are put, their evidence will doubtless be viewed as ‘evasive’, ‘not credible’ or worse and will most likely undermine the case of the party they are giving evidence in behalf of.

So, ultimately no-one can be compelled to answer any question, but by avoiding the question, or answering it with a non-sequitur response, or responding with another question etc..all serve to undermine what is contained in their written statement, which is ultimately one of the principal aims of cross examination, although eliciting other answers for wider tactical reasons is another.

As an advocate, it’s the hardest, and usually last skill to master, but at its finest it’s the most effective weapon and what separates the great from the merely good.

And I expect Pannick will be fucking brilliant at it. It usually helps if you’re far smarter than the person you’re asking questions of, which in relation to Masters will unquestionably be the case.

 

[Stoned Rose]

The rules were only brought in to fuck us over.

Agreed. But we still have to abide by them.

 

[wolviedinho]

Agreed. But we still have to abide by them.

No we don’t… allegedly-:)


Don’t buy the opinion that you have to abide by protectionist rules. City today in its current form would be Newcastle or worse Everton.

The club had no choice but to sign up and to find ways around it.

 

[feedmpenzaandhewillscore]

Masters is smug tonight with a carrot adorned in an utd kit ready for his ricker because City never won.
No mention of us not being beaten for 2 full yrs at home

6 years in the champions league, that’s some record.

 

[IrishBlueSince92]

Shut down the hearing, the Dunney Monster says we’ve nothing to worry about

 

[Damanino]

I assume this 10 weeks hearing may be like each Monday, maybe half of Tuesdays each week, rather than 5 days a week for 10 weeks.

if our lawyers are on the point, they must have put the fear into PL already. some charges may be off the table already.

confidential or not there were leaks of snippets from the Everton and Forest cases as well, same will be here.

if any more comment is still confident, bullish on our side next weeks, after weeks of hearing and our lawyers coming back with good info, that will be a great sign.

I am sure Masters is on the phone to Arse, dippers, rags each week with some updates. Berrada updated on the City commercial things lol the irony. I am telling my rag friends Berrada will be taken by the FBI first if we did do any illegal thing here.:)))

 

[M18CTID]

Great post. I hope you're right pal!

Me too!

 

[cheekybids]

I think you’re getting it the wrong way round mate.

Each party will have submitted a number of witness statements from individual witnesses to advance their case. The opposing side will then either agree the statement because it contains nothing they want to challenge (because there is nothing controversial or it is expedient not to do so) in which case the witness will not be required to attend, but otherwise the assumption is that the witness will be tendered for cross examination, which means attending to give live evidence and being asked questions on the content of their statement, and other matters that are within their knowledge.


It’s not normally obligatory for a witness to attend in this setting (although I think there is the power to compel a witness to do so via the High Court, it is unlikely to be exercised here) and if they don’t then hearsay being permissible the witness statement is admissible as evidence but little weight will be attached to it, as the other side has not had the opportunity to challenge its contents via cross examination.

If they do attend then the other side will have the opportunity to cross examine them. If they don’t answer the question (a tediously common refrain) then the advocate (if they are any good) will simply ask it again until they get an answer, or the tribunal intervenes, and so as a consequence of their failure to answer questions that are put, their evidence will doubtless be viewed as ‘evasive’, ‘not credible’ or worse and will most likely undermine the case of the party they are giving evidence in behalf of.

So, ultimately no-one can be compelled to answer any question, but by avoiding the question, or answering it with a non-sequitur response, or responding with another question etc..all serve to undermine what is contained in their written statement, which is ultimately one of the principal aims of cross examination, although eliciting other answers for wider tactical reasons is another.

As an advocate, it’s the hardest, and usually last skill to master, but at its finest it’s the most effective weapon and what separates the great from the merely good.

And I expect Pannick will be fucking brilliant at it. It usually helps if you’re far smarter than the person you’re asking questions of, which in relation to Masters will unquestionably be the case.

What a showcase that would be, up there with the sick swan or smashing Madrid…….

Quite a few people have mentioned some charges may be off the table already. Why would the premier league do this rather than allowing the arbitrator to make a decision?

 

[cheekybids]

Shut down the hearing, the Dunney Monster says we’ve nothing to worry about

The snide fucker still made the comment about expensive legal team. After we’ve won & Masters is interviewed I’d like to ask him if he blames his solicitors for the loss?

 

[halfcenturyup]

The rules are nothing like they were in 2009/10 have you done any research on it whatsoever

I have done a little research in the last eighteen months. You know, since this whole thing started. Rules change, they develop. That's normal. The crux of the matter is that the club had to provide accounts to the PL, it had to provide an audit opinion on those accounts and it had to provide interim/future financial information. And it had to do all that in good faith.

But, once again. Explain to me the changes in the rules in respect of the most serious allegations between 2009/10 and 2017/18 that have any substantive effect at all on those allegations.

Actually, never mind, if you are hanging your hat onto a literal reading of the individual rules without seeing the bigger picture of alleged conspiracy and fraud, then it would be wasting all our time.

We clearly don't agree on anything. It's nothing personal, but I think I will leave you to it. I hope you are right, though. If you are, the hearing will be done and dusted by tonight. I wouldn't have any problem with that.