johnnytapia
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Feb 2012
- Messages
- 10,691
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
Johnny Mars Bar
Well-Known Member
Couldn’t he just claim the same as the guys who was asked about referencing ‘Gilf states’
- ‘That was just a general term Inused st the time. I didn’t specifically mean it exactly so’
Hi Wayne.
This merely highlights why the number of breaches is irrelevant. In fact the issues in play can be mapped into relatively few baskets and not all witnesses will be relevant to all baskets.As a layman I 100% accept this, but must admit I am completely baffled. How does all that evidence get mapped into the 130 specific charges across 13 years, at least 13 versions of the PL Handbook and 13 sets of accounts. Let's say eg, Simon Pearce was questioned again about his famous email which related to one sponsorship and in one FY. What specifc charges are relevant to his testimony ? Was this the reason it took 18 months to reach a hearing, ie the mappings were all agreed beforehand. I can see one hell of a master spreadsheet would be needed to manage the complexity. I have always assumed the ruling will state an outcome on every single charge, Maybe it will just do 13 outcomes, so one per year.
Sports law barely exists in reality as it’s a combination of various types of law depending on the case but Lewis seems very experienced on acting for regulators.Lewis is best known for his sports law work? Nothing in this case screams sports law. I would imagine Pannick is more experienced in general law, including what this case is about: contract law and financial irregularity? Or is that too simple?
On the face of it, Pannick is not a typical pick for this case but that is why City brought in Philip Marshall KC too who is much more of a conventional civil fraud/accounting irregularity specialist (he actually was the chosen barrister on the claimant side in a class action case against my company which we managed to stave off - that was all allegations of civil fraud/accounting issues/disclosure etc)
Johnny Mars Bar
Well-Known Member
Sounds like good news to me
Can someone give me a summary of what this means?
I deleted my Twitter account a while ago and this thread has a billion pages of people talking bollocks
Stefan as a complete novice on this, it would seem the main remit of the charges is that our accounts are false, but seeing as numbers are finite are they trying to prove that our accounts are false and there is a secondary set of accounts or that our numbers are wrong full stop, im just curious how u disprove numbers?This merely highlights why the number of breaches is irrelevant. In fact the issues in play can be mapped into relatively few baskets and not all witnesses will be relevant to all baskets.
I don’t think the PL are going as far as saying we had different sets of accounts rather they allege (and need to prove) that a substantial amount of recorded revenue on the actual accounts was not revenue at all and that the audited accounts are, therefore, all materially wrong and deliberately so. There are similar charges relating to under stating of expenses too.Stefan as a complete novice on this, it would seem the main remit of the charges is that our accounts are false, but seeing as numbers are finite are they trying to prove that our accounts are false and there is a secondary set of accounts or that our numbers are wrong full stop, im just curious how u disprove numbers?
So again from a novice perspective arent they therefore alleging fraud and false accounting on our behalf which would be a criminal offence?I don’t think the PL are going as far as saying we had different sets of accounts rather they allege (and need to prove) that a substantial amount of recorded revenue on the actual accounts was not revenue at all and that the audited accounts are, therefore, all materially wrong and deliberately so. There are similar charges relating to under stating of expenses too.
Very likely nothing, if it does mean something it could mean something either way (good or bad) and even if true, nobody ever confirmed the hearing duration anyway so we don’t know how long it was actually meant to runCan someone give me a summary of what this means?
I deleted my Twitter account a while ago and this thread has a billion pages of people talking bollocks
Johnny Mars Bar
Well-Known Member
Very likely nothing, if it does mean something it could mean something either way (good or bad) and even if true, nobody ever confirmed the hearing duration anyway so we don’t know how long it was actually meant to run
Thanks Stefan. Figured as much.