PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I agree. The only other issue I think the PL witnesses may be important is if the PL deny knowledge of certain matters at the time. That is likely to be clear in the documents but if not, say, City's witness say they were discussed orally and the PL says they have no record of such a discussion, then some witness cross examination may be necessary. I'd say quite difficult to see how Masters has any meaningful evidence at all on the substantive matters. So PL witnesses (aside from expert witnesses) are largely a red herring.

NB: Masters did give a witness statement for Everton on the points recommendation from the PL's standpoint so that may be relevant but it is unlikely a) for this initial IC b) something for cross examination - it is more a submission by the PL.

It’s funny when you’re not fully immersed in something, and you apply your mind to it fleetingly, you can easily miss something. I always assumed at the back of my mind Masters would give evidence, but thinking about it, it doesn’t make sense, so it was a red herring!

Difficult to see any oral discussions that weren’t minuted taking the case very far one way or the other. Would that even constitute ‘knowledge’? I expect the PL rules require any notification to them to be in writing?

And yes, Masters’ view on sanctions will have no evidential merit whatsoever. That’s plainly a matter for submissions upon a finding of the charges being proved (in part or full).

 

[halfcenturyup]

It’s funny when you’re not fully immersed in something, and you apply your mind to it fleetingly, you can easily miss something. I always assumed at the back of my mind Masters would give evidence, but thinking about it, it doesn’t make sense, so it was a red herring!

Difficult to see any oral discussions that weren’t minuted taking the case very far one way or the other. Would that even constitute ‘knowledge’? I expect the PL rules require any notification to them to be in writing?

And yes, Masters’ view on sanctions will have no evidential merit whatsoever. That’s plainly a matter for submissions upon a finding of the charges being proved (in part or full).

Can the club call him as a hostile witness? Does that even exist, or have I been watching too many movies? :)

 

[supercity88]

I agree. The only other issue I think the PL witnesses may be important is if the PL deny knowledge of certain matters at the time. That is likely to be clear in the documents but if not, say, City's witness say they were discussed orally and the PL says they have no record of such a discussion, then some witness cross examination may be necessary. I'd say quite difficult to see how Masters has any meaningful evidence at all on the substantive matters. So PL witnesses (aside from expert witnesses) are largely a red herring.

NB: Masters did give a witness statement for Everton on the points recommendation from the PL's standpoint so that may be relevant but it is unlikely a) for this initial IC b) something for cross examination - it is more a submission by the PL.

I would have thought, if we need to get to the punishment stage, Masters would again set out what the PL would anticipate as being a fair one. IIRC didn't Masters' suggestion get dismissed by the independent panel who came up with their own punishment (identical to Masters' suggestion)?

 

[Newman Noggs]

In fact thinking about it, the less witnesses the PL has, the better.

There is no point Masters coming along and giving evidence on the decision making process to charge City, as it has no probative evidential value. The only PL witnesses who will have any evidential value are those who can attest to the substance of the charges as they have witnessed something material that supports them, or because they are an expert in a relevant field, presumably in finance.

What are Masters, or any of the PL hierarchy going to add evidently to the charges, other than in relation to non-cooperation?

It’s possible they can, of course, but struggling to see how.

It's an interesting question which is, as you suggest, difficult to answer absent sight of the evidence. However, my thinking is that the decision-making progress in bringing the charges may form part of the case because the question of "good faith" in the allegations is subjective.

That is to say someone at the PL has looked at the evidence and formed the opinion that City's actions constutute dishonesty. Whilst, obviously, it is ultimately for the Commission to decide, as it's implicit in the most serious charges, it would seem to be legitimate to cross examine whoever made that decision to bring out whether that opinion was arrived at properly.

Unlike, for example, the Secretary of State who, because (s)he can't see everything, is accepted as being able to delegate that power to their civil servants, I don't think Masters can shift that responsibility. Given the seriousness of the case and all its implications, he absolutely must have signed off on it and, therefore, should be able to justify it.

City, may, of course, believe that the decision-making process was impeccable or that there is nothing to be gained by challenging it but I suspect not and that Masters will end up being cross examined. I certainly hope so.

 

[Champions again in 2012]

I agree with this also. Almost no chance - and you don't want an adverse witness where you have no idea what he/she will say anyway.

Could the independent panel legitimately draw any inference if a witness refuses to co-operate / refuses to appear at the hearing?

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Can the club call him as a hostile witness? Does that even exist, or have I been watching too many movies? :)

Hostile witnesses are the preserve of the criminal courts and is where your own witness is giving unexpected and unhelpful answers when being examined in chief. In those circumstances you can apply to the court to treat the (and your own) witness as hostile and thereby cross examine them.

In a civil setting witnesses aren’t examined in chief and so it doesn’t arise.

 

[halfcenturyup]

It's an interesting question which is, as you suggest, difficult to answer absent sight of the evidence. However, my thinking is that the decision-making progress in bringing the charges may form part of the case because the question of "good faith" in the allegations is subjective.

That is to say someone at the PL has looked at the evidence and formed the opinion that City's actions constutute dishonesty. Whilst, obviously, it is ultimately for the Commission to decide, as it's implicit in the most serious charges, it would seem to be legitimate to cross examine whoever made that decision to bring out whether that opinion was arrived at properly.

Unlike, for example, the Secretary of State who, because (s)he can't see everything, is accepted as being able to delegate that power to their civil servants, I don't think Masters can shift that responsibility. Given the seriousness of the case and all its implications, he absolutely must have signed off on it and, therefore, should be able to justify it.

City, may, of course, believe that the decision-making process was impeccable or that there is nothing to be gained by challenging it but I suspect not and that Masters will end up being cross examined. I certainly hope so.

I have no experience in any of this, but it's interesting to learn and it's all fascinating as fuck.

 

[supercity88]

It’s funny when you’re not fully immersed in something, and you apply your mind to it fleetingly, you can easily miss something. I always assumed at the back of my mind Masters would give evidence, but thinking about it, it doesn’t make sense, so it was a red herring!

Difficult to see any oral discussions that weren’t minuted taking the case very far one way or the other. Would that even constitute ‘knowledge’? I expect the PL rules require any notification to them to be in writing?

And yes, Masters’ view on sanctions will have no evidential merit whatsoever. That’s plainly a matter for submissions upon a finding of the charges being proved (in part or full).

I would expect City to have wanted everything confirmed in writing and wouldn't have accepted verbal confirmation in isolation.

I think Masters being at the centre of this means you'd expect him to be there, but he serves no purpose. I wouldn't have thought we'd rely on any witnesses from the PL. I'd expect us to have everything in written statements and will be confident our own witnesses will get everything thrown out, as they did at CAS. I wonder if Mancini has been asked to attend?

 

[Cobwebcat]

In fairness, the sponsorship allegations, if all proved, are quite material and serious albeit quite a while ago.

Why would City need to top up a sponsorship deal from say Etisalat given that Etisilat are a multi billion pound company (an Asian Vodaphone)

I know that the argument is that the deal was too small so ADUG made up the difference but how plausible is that? If City wanted to make a “friendly deal” with Etisilat surely they would make sure they were going to pay what City wanted not a tenth of it?!

I know that’s the allegation but it makes no common sense to me.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Hostile witnesses is the preserve of the criminal courts and is where your own witness is giving unexpected and unhelpful answers. In those circumstances you can apply to the court to treat the (and your own) witness as hostile and thereby cross examine them.

See, I told you I know nothing about any of this :)

Different question then. Can the club call Masters as a witness?