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.
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 accrued
32 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.