PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[Grassland Blue]

I cannot imagine that City will simply forgive and forget a ten year long attempt to destroy them.

Probably not. I agree.
However, the 'stop City whatever it takes' brigade should be brought to book, but have City got the resolve to go into other battles after this?

 

[Blue warrior]

Don’t worry blues, some good away trips in the east Lancashire league!

 

[Tarzan41]

We're definitely fucked as this Football 365 are very reliable ....

View attachment 132359

Anybody that calls themselves a Cityzen is welcome to go.

 

[silva_is_gold]

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

I have no experience or knowledge in any of this & it's all confusing as fuck haha

 

[johnny crossan]

Probably not. I agree.
However, the 'stop City whatever it takes' brigade should be brought to book, but have City got the resolve to go into other battles after this?

Suspect our compensation claims will be carefully targeted - City won't want to damage their own profitability or the long term growth of the business they've invested in.

 

[Joe Donachie]

Wide range of outcomes. IC could conclude lots of different things from very serious to a minor or non-cooperation. Smaller, technical breaches are possible but so are serious ones. Very hard to know until we see the decision

I did jury service about 15 years ago now, It was actually a murder case I was on, and despite more than half of my fellow jury members believing there was a good chance the suspect was guilty we just did not have enough clear evidence to find them guilty,

Also in between breaks of being called back into the courtroom ( of which there was a lot as the judge loved to call for a break every 2 hours lol) I got speaking to people on jury service on another case and some of them had lost there jobs as they had been on this particular fraud case for over over 6 months,

Apparently fraud cases are the worse ones for coming to a conclusion as there is usually so many people involved, money trails, different accounts, different countries, various forms of communication, that in the end quite a few of the cases end up collapsing or the people involved being given a not guilty verdict

I always remember the judge and his closing speech to us jury members before we left for the deliberation room, he said ( you must be 100% in your decision, if there is any shed of doubt then you must return a not guilty verdict)

I wonder if this independent panel will work to the same remit, if not 100% in us being guilty then they have to drop all the charges against us,

I actually think that if we get cleared on the main 3 charges then the rest will collapse,

 

[Newman Noggs]

I don't think this will be City's defence. It isn't a good defence anyway IMO

In isolation, no, I agree. As part of a comprehensive defence, I think it has a place.

 

[Prophet of Doom]

I see Owen Slot in The Times has written a piece about City being the biggest cheats in history. The same Owen Slot that is The Times rugby reporter…….married to Arsenal’s commercial manager…..writing a snide City piece just before we play Arsenal.

Nothing to see here !!

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

All pretty unlikely especially before any cross examination which won’t conclude for some time. Right now the best the sides will have is an impression of each ICs members general view. It’s really very very early in a hearing like this

Clearly the hearing, with the examination and cross-examination of witnesses, is key to the outcome. That's why the more I think about it, I'm a little dubious about this alleged offer of a 6-point deduction (although I'm confident that some sort of settlement approach was made).

The PL would have to be very confident about their case, and the sort of penalty that might be imposed if so, to see a 6-point deduction as a 'generous' offer. I'd see that more as Masters potentially trying to keep the cartel onside. "Look guys, I made a decent offer but they weren't having it".

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

I don't think it is relevant and isn't really how cross examination works - really cross examination is an exercise to discredit the witness or extract the answer you want from the witness. In any event, I'd think he will just say he received privileged advice on the subject and can't discuss it.

I get the reality but it’s always been somewhat dispiriting that the result of cross examination isn’t to find out the truth..