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
wolviedinho
Well-Known Member
The Judge has thrown out an appeal by Ronaldo’s Rape accuser. Essentially she was after more money despite receiving £ 275 grand hush money.
The alleged victim tried to use the “football leaks” throve against Ronaldo.
Stovall sought and used documents from 'Football Leaks' - including those clearly marked attorney-client privileged - to prosecute a new lawsuit on behalf of Mayorga against Ronaldo,' the circuit court said.
Judge Dorsey 'properly held that Ronaldo did not waive or otherwise forfeit his claim of attorney-client privilege as to the 'Football Leaks' documents,' it said.
The appellate judges specifically rejected Stoval's argument that Ronaldo failed to adequately safeguard the documents.
Ronaldo is a wrong un so I am not supporting the twat regarding his actions. Interesting bit of info tho. Gives you an idea how the stolen emails can be viewed and used in court.
The alleged victim tried to use the “football leaks” throve against Ronaldo.
Stovall sought and used documents from 'Football Leaks' - including those clearly marked attorney-client privileged - to prosecute a new lawsuit on behalf of Mayorga against Ronaldo,' the circuit court said.
Judge Dorsey 'properly held that Ronaldo did not waive or otherwise forfeit his claim of attorney-client privilege as to the 'Football Leaks' documents,' it said.
The appellate judges specifically rejected Stoval's argument that Ronaldo failed to adequately safeguard the documents.
Ronaldo is a wrong un so I am not supporting the twat regarding his actions. Interesting bit of info tho. Gives you an idea how the stolen emails can be viewed and used in court.
meltonblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 14 May 2013
- Messages
- 6,993
I recall talk of Mancini doing consultancy work for Mansour prior to his appointment as manager. It was part of the discussion about Hughes and possible successors. Mancini was mentioned in the context of his existing links and work for Mansour.
I have no idea if a new consultancy contract was signed or extended or whatever. I do know it was no secret that he was time barred from working as a manager and employed as a consultant and no one cared. For me, ‘Man has two jobs’, is not much of a scandal.
It wouldn’t be. Like I said though, he signed an agreement with Al Jazira the same day he signed for us and it looks like we paid the invoices for both and continued to do so for a while (again, if the leaked docs are legit)
The signatures on the docs were signed by the same person on behalf of City and Al Jazira too.It wouldn’t be. Like I said though, he signed an agreement with Al Jazira the same day he signed for us and it looks like we paid the invoices for both and continued to do so for a while (again, if the leaked docs are legit)
But this is a waste of time:
- We are are already fucked on Point 1 of the PL charge sheet if it gets down to this.
- It is not a hanging offence if indeed there is an offence.
- It is immaterial in any case as repeatedly confirmed by Stefan and others.
We aren't fucked on point 1 if this comes up, it will likely be part of deciding whether the club has acted in good faith and disclosed it's financial situation accurately.
meltonblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 14 May 2013
- Messages
- 6,993
My understanding is that former employees who went to Liverpool used someone's password who was still working at City.
But it doesn't matter. Knowingly accessing a computer system you know you're not authorised to access is a criminal offence. No ifs, buts or maybes.
Think the issue we had was we could have been in a bit of trouble for it too.
Gordyola
Well-Known Member
Yes it was an hack as it was accessing a system without authorisationThe reports I have read, including claims here, were that an employee went there and used his old password that nobody at the City end bothered to change.
If that's true, it wasn't a 'hack' then. He maybe broke his contract clauses on conduct after leaving, and they exploited access that wasn't specifically granted, but does that really constitute a system breach?
If true at all, of course.
Which, if it is, is probably more likely why the club didn't pursue it much harder, rather than just being naively nice.
Who ever logon on, using someone else's ID or his own from his City employment committed an offence under the misuse of computer act, and would be subject to imprisonment. Account details to access an enterprise system do not belong to an individual, the enterprise is the owner and most probably regard the details as secret. Enterprises have a conduct code for the use of their data and systems, in that it will clearly state that any access to any system will terminate immediately upon ending employment.
For the good of the league and probably because they din't want to see the individual with a criminal record it appears that City dint report the crime and were given a substantial compensation from the offenders employers, which somewhat goes to show that they were aware or even actively encouraged it.
Is the onus on us to prove that something was done in return for the £1.7m/year or is the onus on them to show that it wasn't? It just seems a bit easy for us to say well actually, person X done this or that to fulfill the agreement and they'd be unable to dispute otherwise.
The onus is obviously on them to convince the panel on the basis of probablilities, but I think there's enough evidence going in one direction (date of contracts, same person signing both, City paying the exact amount to Al Jazira etc.) that the club can't just ignore it and claim the PL hasn't reached the threshold, they will need some sort of rebuttal.
HelloCity
Well-Known Member
By failing to change our passwords, we would have failed to ensure adequate security. The player records would have been classed as personal data.
Article 5(1)(f) of the UK GDPR concerns the ‘integrity and confidentiality’ of personal data. It says that personal data shall be:Think the issue we had was we could have been in a bit of trouble for it too.
'Processed in a manner that ensures appropriate security of the personal data, including protection against unauthorised or unlawful processing and against accidental loss, destruction or damage, using appropriate technical or organisational measures'
Khaldoon has twice let our enemies off the hook in the interests of better relations: this Liverpool case (they just carried on spying by suborning City employees) and UEFA in 2014. In both cases it has come back to bite us and I don’t think Khaldoon will lightly let anyone off in future.The Premier League have really fucked up and I always thought turkeys never voted for Christmas. The negative PR from all this media coverage is a total shitshow for English football.
When our PL charges are finally settled, I hope he will open up with both barrels.