PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

Are you still not allowed near schools and nurseries?

That's MCFC Wirral/ peofrey

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Had to miss the Gillingham game. Gutted.

It was shite until injury time.

 

[Groke]

This email says you were going to kill your wife. It looks very much like you are a murderer?

I call my first witness….the wife.

or
email 1: I'm going to kill the gym this afternoon
email 2: I'm going out with my wife tonight
Der Spiegel evidence: I'm going to kill my wife tonight

 

[supercity88]

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)?

There would be no evidential merit in terms of the charges themselves but you'd imagine, like at CAS, we do make the point that there has been a witch-hunt and failures within the organisation that caused us concern. It's unlikely to get us anywhere, it didn't with CAS for example and led to the non-cooperation fine, but I would anticipate the club still make that point and question the timing of everything.

In all honesty it's a similar case as the PL are likely making. We assume there's been pressure from the history boys to bring charges, with a looming independent regulator being threatened. The PL assume the hacked emails point to fraudulent activity. Both are making a huge jump and are very hard/impossible to prove. But it doesn't stop you trying.

 

[cheekybids]

This email says you were going to kill your wife. It looks very much like you are a murderer?

I call my first witness….the wife.

They call that getting off on a technicality……

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

There would be no evidential merit in terms of the charges themselves but you'd imagine, like at CAS, we do make the point that there has been a witch-hunt and failures within the organisation that caused us concern. It's unlikely to get us anywhere, it didn't with CAS for example and led to the non-cooperation fine, but I would anticipate the club still make that point and question the timing of everything.

I think it’s a valid line of cross examination to pursue with any witness who is in a position to assist but the tribunal may well intervene if they think it’s not relevant to the charges, especially if it’s repeatedly pursued.

I guess it depends on how the PL litigates the non-cooperation in their evidence as much as anything. If City’s defence to that is the PL was acting in bad faith and you shouldn’t be compelled to cooperate with a bad faith actor then I would guess it’s got to be a valid line of questioning.

 

[cheekybids]

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

If you did you’d be on £5k per hour :)

 

[HelloCity]

Yes apparently so. PL witness cross examined by City

Going off his performance in front of government, that must have gone well for us...

 

[Newman Noggs]

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)?

All imho, of course.

In the light of the evidence City have filed since the charges were brought, whether he would have brought them at all. That the case hasn't been dropped, tells us he still holds the opinion that City have acted dishonestly. If, under cross-examination, he accepts the key points we've made in defence or is unable to explain why he doesn't believe them, it may undermine his position which is, after all, merely an opinion in which he is opining on the state of someone else's mind. My experience is fraud cases and I've seen "experts" and professional witnesses succumb to this sort of cross-examination and fatally hole the Application/prosecution in one sentence. Masters is neither of those.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Yes apparently so. PL witness cross examined by City

I'd want to ask him about the decision to bring this action, with the sponsorship issue at its core, given the outcome at CAS.