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).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
I get the reality but it’s always been somewhat dispiriting that the result of cross examination isn’t to find out the truth..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.
Its a civil hearing so the verdict is on "The Balance Of Probabilities" and not "Beyond All reasonable Doubt" as in a criminal case.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,
On the other side of the coin, if city have been ‘at it’ wouldn’t they have snapped their hands off for 6 points, a monster fine and some words that finally put this all to bed?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".
C£60-70m pa
Thank you both very much.No-one is sure what the details of the allegations are, but for Etihad they are probably saying that 8 million per year of the sponsorship was paid by Etihad directly and the rest by "someone else" assumed by the PL to be ADUG, over all the years 2009/10 to 2017/18.
The Etihad sponsorship began at around 40 million a year and is now thought to be around 65 million a year, so anywhere between 30 and 55 million a year funded by ADUG over 9 years, so say 300-400 million.
Then you have any amounts for Etisalat, Aabar, ADTA they think they have on top.
Iirc, UEFA at CAS suggested 200 million, but they weren't looking at the same number of years as the PL.
Although there does seem to be a possible loophole.They call that getting off on a technicality……
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".
Probably pissed off because it looks like his hit piece on the APT case has failed.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 !!