Gingers Dad
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2011
- Messages
- 7,045
I don't think you can
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules
- Thread starter ayrshire_blue
- Start date
dadnlad
Well-Known Member
thank you for posting everton takeover bit on twitterNot earning a living from Talksport I can promise you that!
Kinkys Left Foot
Well-Known Member
The only way we settle is if we are guilty of any of the charges, the club are adamant we are not.
Jordan back to being a **** again I see with his usual bullshit analogies of "Enron", "Case to answer", "Sunlight is the best disinfectant". I note he didn't make any quips about the cost of barristers this time when Stefan informed him of the fucking size of the PL legal team which is probably twice the size of City's. Does he really expect this Independent Commission to reach a finding that ALL of City's witnesses, respected and world renowned business people who rely on honesty, integrity, business acumen and decades of international business experience, including our owner, a member of the Royal Family of Abu Dhabi and deputy Prime Minister, are all liars and the evidence we produce must therefore be fabricated. That would be somewhat of a Pandoras box to open would it not?
So now the game is not necessarily about the truth, it's the PL's advocates' ability to try and find inconsistencies in the statements of City's witnesses. Is that shorthand for "prove they are mistaken or lying"? and I would suppose these mistakes or lies must be, to a "material degree". This is where litigation can be dangerous in respect of the burden of proof being only on the "balance of probability". They are likely to seize on anything that cannot be substantiated and try and expand that.
"So Mr Haaland, you cannot remember what time you went to the toilet on the morning of Sunday 22nd September! Yet you expect us to believe you distinctly remember slotting the ball past Mr Raya, at (pause whilst he dons some pince nez spectacles on the end of a keychain and peers at a copy of the witness statement before him) at the ehhem Etihad stadium? I put it to you Mr Haaland that if you cannot remember such an obvious act of micturition or what time it took place then you can hardly expect this panel to believe you can remember clearly anything that happened on that particular day, wouldn't you agree? - I know but you get my drift!
Regarding the most serious charges, I'm still trying hard to wrap my head around the fact that if we produce sufficient evidence (by means of a documented and an unimpeachable audit trail for the money - both amounts where necessary, in every year) to prove the money to pay for the Etihad sponsorship did not come from our owner but came from Etihad's accounts, no matter which ones, associated with the company. That alone should be sufficient to exsanguinate the PL argument of owner equity investment? Can we not simply do that?
I cannot conceive they have sufficient evidence to prove fraud, mistake or concealment to open up the path to matters normally time barred either.
Would the Commission be asked to make such a finding prior to any evidence in those matters being heard? Otherwise weeks of the hearing could be spent on matters which would be ruled as outside of the time limits set by the Limitation Act 1980.
I also wonder in relation to the exception at 32(1) that reasonable argument could be made that the PL have been receiving copies of our accounts every year and could indeed, at any times in the years since the institution of the FFP rules, with reasonable diligence have discovered our alleged dishonesty being as their allegations are that it is so massive as to warrant 129 charges over a decade.
(a) the action is based upon the fraud* of the defendant; or
(b) any fact relevant to the plaintiff’s right of action has been deliberately concealed from him by the defendant; or
(c) the action is for relief from the consequences of a mistake;
the period of limitation shall not begin to run until the plaintiff has discovered the fraud, concealment or mistake (as the case may be) or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it
Collins
* countable noun
A fraud is something or someone that deceives people in a way that is illegal or dishonest.
Jordan back to being a **** again I see with his usual bullshit analogies of "Enron", "Case to answer", "Sunlight is the best disinfectant". I note he didn't make any quips about the cost of barristers this time when Stefan informed him of the fucking size of the PL legal team which is probably twice the size of City's. Does he really expect this Independent Commission to reach a finding that ALL of City's witnesses, respected and world renowned business people who rely on honesty, integrity, business acumen and decades of international business experience, including our owner, a member of the Royal Family of Abu Dhabi and deputy Prime Minister, are all liars and the evidence we produce must therefore be fabricated. That would be somewhat of a Pandoras box to open would it not?
So now the game is not necessarily about the truth, it's the PL's advocates' ability to try and find inconsistencies in the statements of City's witnesses. Is that shorthand for "prove they are mistaken or lying"? and I would suppose these mistakes or lies must be, to a "material degree". This is where litigation can be dangerous in respect of the burden of proof being only on the "balance of probability". They are likely to seize on anything that cannot be substantiated and try and expand that.
"So Mr Haaland, you cannot remember what time you went to the toilet on the morning of Sunday 22nd September! Yet you expect us to believe you distinctly remember slotting the ball past Mr Raya, at (pause whilst he dons some pince nez spectacles on the end of a keychain and peers at a copy of the witness statement before him) at the ehhem Etihad stadium? I put it to you Mr Haaland that if you cannot remember such an obvious act of micturition or what time it took place then you can hardly expect this panel to believe you can remember clearly anything that happened on that particular day, wouldn't you agree? - I know but you get my drift!
Regarding the most serious charges, I'm still trying hard to wrap my head around the fact that if we produce sufficient evidence (by means of a documented and an unimpeachable audit trail for the money - both amounts where necessary, in every year) to prove the money to pay for the Etihad sponsorship did not come from our owner but came from Etihad's accounts, no matter which ones, associated with the company. That alone should be sufficient to exsanguinate the PL argument of owner equity investment? Can we not simply do that?
I cannot conceive they have sufficient evidence to prove fraud, mistake or concealment to open up the path to matters normally time barred either.
Would the Commission be asked to make such a finding prior to any evidence in those matters being heard? Otherwise weeks of the hearing could be spent on matters which would be ruled as outside of the time limits set by the Limitation Act 1980.
I also wonder in relation to the exception at 32(1) that reasonable argument could be made that the PL have been receiving copies of our accounts every year and could indeed, at any times in the years since the institution of the FFP rules, with reasonable diligence have discovered our alleged dishonesty being as their allegations are that it is so massive as to warrant 129 charges over a decade.
5 Time limit for actions founded on simple contract.
An action founded on simple contract shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued32 Postponement of limitation period in case of fraud, concealment or mistake.
(1) Subject to (Issues) below, where in the case of any action for which a period of limitation is prescribed by this Act, either—(a) the action is based upon the fraud* of the defendant; or
(b) any fact relevant to the plaintiff’s right of action has been deliberately concealed from him by the defendant; or
(c) the action is for relief from the consequences of a mistake;
the period of limitation shall not begin to run until the plaintiff has discovered the fraud, concealment or mistake (as the case may be) or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it
Collins
* countable noun
A fraud is something or someone that deceives people in a way that is illegal or dishonest.
SilverFox2
Well-Known Member
Your point regarding the trend for written documentation has been brought into many sectors of business.Is this not a key reason many industries document and sign transactions or operations, to shift the reliance away from the memory or word of individuals, and provide a clear trail of certified information when historical proof or evidence is needed. I guess the Premier league will do it's best to drag the discourse away from that level of certainty and focus on portraying a scene of murky dealings in the background for which witnesses and what they share will become all important.
I have been retired for some time now but recently the people who pay my pension including my state pension are requiring written evidence that I am effectively still alive.
They ask for various documents, my signature on various statements and all countersigned by a lawyer / solicitor.
GortonBlue62
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 26 Nov 2015
- Messages
- 3,060
I know you're not there to defend City. I know you're there to promote yourself. Absolutely no problem with that. In fact it makes your opinions even more valuable to people like me because it means your one of the few people worth listening to.We've been over it before. The best way to deal with the idea it is all a stitch is to show how ludicrous that suggestion looks in the face of a 12 week hearing, a 200 page + decision, a 5 year process, EIGHT PL barristers etc. But again, a) I don't have infinite time b) it is not my show c) I am not paid by City to defend them.
I'll stress, once again, my gratitude to people like you for sharing your expertise with us, but the fact remains the TS studio is not an environment you're able to thrive in. You are too measured, too polite, too slow to compete with those bastards.
Your strength is the written word and an environment where you have time to make your points to people who will give you a fair hearing.
My only concern is Manchester City, not your hurt feelings about being taken to the cleaners on national radio, yet again.
Fully braced for another thread ban for having the temerity to say anything negative about you, but I stand by the points I've made.
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
I've seen the emails Stefan. Direct from ADUG to your Cayman Islands account. I've sent them to Nick Harris. ;-)c) I am not paid by City to defend them.
[eye roll emoji]I know you're not there to defend City. I know you're there to promote yourself. Absolutely no problem with that. In fact it makes your opinions even more valuable to people like me because it means your one of the few people worth listening to.
I'll stress, once again, my gratitude to people like you for sharing your expertise with us, but the fact remains the TS studio is not an environment you're able to thrive in. You are too measured, too polite, too slow to compete with those bastards.
Your strength is the written word and an environment where you have time to make your points to people who will give you a fair hearing.
My only concern is Manchester City, not your hurt feelings about being taken to the cleaners on national radio, yet again.
Fully braced for another thread ban for having the temerity to say anything negative about you, but I stand by the points I've made.
Can you chase the cash please. Still not arrived.I've seen the emails Stefan. Direct from ADUG to your Cayman Islands account. I've sent them to Nick Harris. ;-)
He was so 'calm' he failed to counter any of Jordan's anti City bullshit.
A good lesson for every city fan to learn, no matter how informed, factual and good at explaining you are, you’re never going to convince 75% of the audience who just want to see a rival club punished.
For the majority of talksport listeners, the only proof they need of wrongdoing is that 20 years ago City were midtable and now we’ve got a record 4 titles in a row. Stefan could have 3 hours to talk uninterrupted and he’d not convince any of them.
The other 25% aren’t listening to Simon Jordan as an authority anyway, but personally think it’s invaluable for the fans to have someone putting across the other view, even if it’s once a month and they get talked over. The club certainly doesn’t seem interested in managing the PR around the charges or reminding the media that a positive outcome for City is possible.
Sheikh rattle and roll
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 May 2014
- Messages
- 2,157
I understand that however if Mancini is on board and has had an adequate briefing by our barristerIt's up to the PL to prove it was a sham contract. They have more need to call Mancini as a witness than we do.
His evidence completely blows the PL out of the water and takes away the integrity re that allegation