PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Milesvk said:
Seeing some people asking if city's evidence at the beginning is so strong could charges be dropped.
Different scenario but hopefully might produce some optimism.
I was in crown court on a 2 week trial (as the accused) on day 1, after the jury was sworn in, the prosecution presented its case against me and others. The judge called up the prosecution barrister and directly asked him what the case was against me. The barrister replayed a video of my actions, the judge pulled a de-niro type face saying 'really'.
I still had to go through all the process, cross examination and everything else.
The judge stated in his closing speech to the jury to basically not to find me guilty. The jury found me not guilty.
Think the point I'm making is even if it's a slam dunk for city on day one, I imagine the whole process will have to be completed and concluded.
Click to expand...
Are you still not allowed near schools and nurseries?
 
Newman Noggs said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's definitely possible. I would anticipate a confidence in dealing with the charges one by one, but you make sure you take on anything and everything that gives you the chance of getting the case(s) dismissed. That would include the procedural process the PL have undertaken in order to bring charges. Timing is so suspicious around this, so it might be worthwhile getting that on the table and asking why the charges were brought despite the hacked emails being public knowledge for a considerable time, and tying it to the independent regulator looming over the PL. I don't think the panel will be too concerned by any of that, but as you say we don't know the details of the case so hard to comment. But it just plants that seed of doubt which may count for something in the long game.
 
Newman Noggs said:
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.
Click to expand...
I get what you’re saying but (other than in relation to non cooperation) what is the evidential merit of the process that led to the decision to charge us?

If it was flawed (which it manifestly was) how does that make it less likely we have broken the rules which we’ve been accused of breaking. How does a decision in 2023 affect something that was alleged to have occurred in 2009 (for example)?
 
slbsn said:
The only disclosure from the PL would have been related to specific points - this idea that City asked for “all PL correspondence” has always been nonsense. Just doesn’t work like that.
Click to expand...

I think it’s because many of us have no knowledge of these proceedings but have recently been able to see Post, & Covid enquiries. You even see Masters asked “Warrabout City” by the select committee so it kind of fills us with hope, no matter how fanciful.
 
I have a very basic question which I am sure has an easy answer, apologies if it has been covered.

When Abramovic sold Chelsea, I am sure I read he wiped off a 1.5B pound loan. Now surely if it was easy as just drawing up a loan from the owner to the club, why would City choose to fudge sponsorship deals or make secret payments to people? Why was it also acceptable for a loan of that side be made from owner to the club, then simply wiped off? Couldn't the sheikh send a billion our way then say actually don't worry about it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

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.