PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[LeonardoDaVnci]

I

The CPR doesn’t apply to this hearing.

i happily defer to your superior knowledge, however a friend of mine (not me, pls) but an AI lawyer disagrees with you. Are you saying the PL Handbooks specifically state CPR shall not be applicable to ICs ?. Curious why the answer would be yes.

fyi The Ai Lawyer said.

Yes, the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) are used in UK commercial law for managing and conducting civil litigation, including commercial disputes. The CPR applies to a wide range of civil cases, including those involving contracts, torts, property, and other business-related matters.

Are there other mechanisms that would lead to a charge or a subset of charges being dismissed/struck out by the IC ?

 

[its grim up north]

Checked this figure with a commercial silk the other day and he said it seemed high. About half that by his reckoning, which is around where I guessed it would be.

It could be right, there’s billions at stake tbf, but I think it’s likely to be lower than £5k an hour fwiw.

I am thinking, would the 5 or 10k be for the main man alone? Or would he have to pay his associates out of this money?

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Agreed! people do prefer the tactility and flexibility of paper as I'm sure trying to wipe your arse with an i pad wouldn't be very comfortable

Don’t knock it till you’ve tried it…

 

[madloaf]

Checked this figure with a commercial silk the other day and he said it seemed high. About half that by his reckoning, which is around where I guessed it would be.

It could be right, there’s billions at stake tbf, but I think it’s likely to be lower than £5k an hour fwiw.

2.5k an hour? I wouldn't get out of bed.

 

[Blue_Lightsaber]

One of the lads near me at the match last night said that Esteemedkompany had tweeted that Lord Pannick got half the charges dropped on Monday. I've not seen the tweet and can't find it.

Apparently, the Premier League barrister read out the charges and Pannick presented the original document, and said (something along the lines of), "No. This is what you originally charged City with, this is what we are defending." and the panel agreed.

Does anyone know about this tweet or heard anything similar?

I delved using a few computer tools and have done a video, ( it needs finishing) on this very subject. Basically there are 15 differences in the text on this page as it stands now, compared to what it said origonally on 06 Feb 23 (It's been changed several times).

Premier League statement

www.premierleague.com

This could totally wreck the case, as the first errors were all in allegation 1, they missed the letter of several of them...

I'll try to finish it and upload it to YouTube at the weekend.

Any links to that tweet would be appreciated?

Considering the major fuckup of the original charges where some of the charges were about the length of the grass..

I would not be surprised they tried a bait and switch on the charges and were called on it.

However I'm not gonna do any pre-mature celebration or anything.. I just believe in my club and the team they have picked to defend us!

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I

i happily defer to your superior knowledge, however a friend of mine (not me, pls) but an AI lawyer disagrees with you. Are you saying the PL Handbooks specifically state CPR shall not be applicable to ICs ?. Curious why the answer would be yes.

fyi The Ai Lawyer said.

Yes, the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) are used in UK commercial law for managing and conducting civil litigation, including commercial disputes. The CPR applies to a wide range of civil cases, including those involving contracts, torts, property, and other business-related matters.

Are there other mechanisms that would lead to a charge or a subset of charges being dismissed/struck out by the IC ?

Actually looked it up and you seem to be correct (apologies) to a certain extent, assuming this falls under the strict definition of arbitration proceedings. It’s covered in part 62 of the CPR, and although that part does exclude certain rules (e.g. 39.2, hearing to be public), by implication it must adopt other rules in the CPR.

Every day is a school day!

 

[jaiguruKun]

He doesn't seem like a frivolous poster (Esteemed Kompany). If the tweet was made, I imagine his information was given and he posted in good faith.

He didn't tweet anything like that.
He's confusing it with another tweet from another account which was clearly intended as a joke.

 

[Invisible Man's Bandage]

Actually looked it up and you seem to be correct (apologies) to a certain extent, assuming this falls under the strict definition of arbitration proceedings. It’s covered in part 62 of the CPR, and although that part does exclude certain rules (e.g. 39.2, hearing to be public), by implication it must adopt other rules in the CPR.

Every day is a school day!

How should @LeonardoDaVnci send his bill?

 

[halfcenturyup]

Well he must be pretty much unique amongst Blues for him to hold the opinion that FFP is an entirely fair, just and justified rule and that if City are found guilty of contravening it in any way then they fully deserve to be punished.

I agree with his position, so not unique. I agree with his position, btw, not with your categorisation of it.

 

[manimanc]

That's twosips bud but it's a tweet (allegedly) and a second hand tweet at that, I doubt he's made stuff up, that's just not his way of working.

I'm not saying he's made it up, far from it mate and I know he isn't the one for tweeting bullshit but I was saying I thought the hearing was water tight and that no rumours or leaks was to get out.
But if he's saying he's heard something then game on.