PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I think it was pretty clear he was repeating the internal, fairly vague expectation on timing. I also take it as confirmation that the panel has not been formally set a deadline. Earlier judgment better for City but we don't actually know what relatively early means - Feb seems very, very early to me - unrealistically so.

I think the timing of a judgment is often down to the wider diary of the principal author, presumably the chair in this instance. Wonder if the tribunal are on a day rate, and what that is. Less than Pannick’s refresher, but more than a Recorder would be my guess!

 

[cheekybids]

He sounded exasperated that he was being asked about the charges again, but wouldn’t read anything into that. Didn’t seem particularly concerned anyway, but guess he has more pressing matters on his mind with our current form!

I think he was exasperated after being asked the question & he answered he hadn’t picked up that they were making a massive injury crisis about the charges until they pressed him again.

 

[Agueroooooooooooo]

He's a qualified solicitor mate.

Mmmmmn. I think I'll get my coat.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Fraud=criminal=beyond reasonable doubt

Civil=balance of probabilities

The Key Differences Between Criminal And Civil Law - Bell Lamb & Joynson Solicitors

Whether you need to know about criminal law or civil law right now, or you just want to gain an understanding for the future, we’ve got you covered.

www.bljsolicitors.co.uk

They are about twenty years out of date in that article with the standard of proof in criminal trials. The express test for the last couple of decades has been being ‘sure’ of someone’s guilt. It’s supposed to amount to the same thing as beyond reasonable doubt, but I don’t wholly agree. It’s definitely in the same ball park, but the previous test contains a qualification that the current one does not. So I think they are slightly different. Otherwise, why change it?

In any event, that article is wrong as to what the stated burden is.

 

[slbsn]

I think the timing of a judgment is often down to the wider diary of the principal author, presumably the chair in this instance. Wonder if the tribunal are on a day rate, and what that is. Less than Pannick’s refresher, but more than a Recorder would be my guess!

I think if the parties had agreed to block the diary of the principal author there would also be a more specific timing.

We do actually know the approximate rates from City v PL

1. The Club made two submissions in this regard:
   ...
   ii) the fees that were paid to the arbitrators in this case were "far from derisory": in a case in which the standard rates were applied the chair received £1,500 per day and the wing members £750 per day and in this case the parties agreed that the members each received £450 per hour.

 

[Bantamgaz]

They are emboldened to their opinion simply because they believe everything and anything the main stream media spoon feeds to them. They become the sheep that can't think for themselves that the media love to feed their ill informed, unsubstantiated and unfounded opinions on so that those sheep can regurgitate it to all and sundry who are just like them.

When you point facts to them they aint got a clue .............in there worlds United always had 75k at EVERY game and City only got 2k before being taken over.
Look back to the gates Arsenal and United got in the 80s and see how really fickle there fanbases where

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I think if the parties had agreed to block the diary of the principal author there would also be a more specific timing.

We do actually know the approximate rates from City v PL

1. The Club made two submissions in this regard:
   ...
   ii) the fees that were paid to the arbitrators in this case were "far from derisory": in a case in which the standard rates were applied the chair received £1,500 per day and the wing members £750 per day and in this case the parties agreed that the members each received £450 per hour.

Thanks! That standard rate is insanely low, given what a commercial silk’s day rate is. At least five times the chair’s rate I’d say.

 

[salfordbluetrue]

Are you on drugs?


Or should you be on drugs?

He`s on something as one post of his I had to ask what the hell he meant and he replied with that same message you`ve just about.
Unfuckingbelievablejeff.

Not sure if you are trying to be insulting? but i will try again.
An independent UEFA panel found us guilty of everything, so we went to CAS, but before we went to CAS we informed them, we would not accept any charge without proof, even going to the point of going to the other arbitration panel, which would have ruined CAS, since their job is not to find guilt, but a path that both can accept, so they dismissed all the charges where there was no proof, and upheld non cooperation, even though it was not proven that UEFA had a right to access these papers.
Since then there have been other PL panels, most noticeably Leicester City, that have also found guilt without relying on the rules, indeed the independent regulator that illegally withheld City funding can be called a PL panel.
So we get to the 115,the first thing City did was object to the Arsenal fan judge, they did this to get the same assurances we got of CAS, since his name is going to be on any appeal

 

[chris85mcfc]

I think if the parties had agreed to block the diary of the principal author there would also be a more specific timing.

We do actually know the approximate rates from City v PL

1. The Club made two submissions in this regard:
   ...
   ii) the fees that were paid to the arbitrators in this case were "far from derisory": in a case in which the standard rates were applied the chair received £1,500 per day and the wing members £750 per day and in this case the parties agreed that the members each received £450 per hour.

Will our legal team have a feeling by now of which way this is likely to go, and if so, are they then likely to have fed this feeling back to the likes of Khaldoon?

 

[slbsn]

Thanks! That standard rate is insanely low, given what a commercial silk’s day rate is. At least five times the chair’s rate I’d say.

For a case like this (some civil fraud elements/accounting complexity), I agree. 5x minimum - could easily be 7x and, of course, we are told Pannick is much higher again.