PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

halfcenturyup said:
Yes, that's right. If a club left before the bill is passed, their leaving couldn't be prevented (unless the wording is changed) but they wouldn't get a licence so they couldn't play in England.
Click to expand...
Wouldn’t be enforced by the court.
 
halfcenturyup said:
The withholding of a licence? If they are playing in a prohibited competition as defined in the bill?
Click to expand...
The fact that something is in a Bill/Act doesn’t mean it is automatically enforceable at court if, for example it amounts to a restraint of trade or otherwise is against public policy. On such niceties are lawyer’s fortunes made, See Pannick and the prorogation of parliament.
Parliament (via treasury counsel) needs to be very aware of the wording of the bill to overcome certain possible objections. This issue is meat and drink to Human Rights lawyers.
 
Last edited:
KS55 said:
The fact that something is in a Bill/Act doesn’t mean it is automatically enforceable at court if, for example it amounts to a restraint of trade or otherwise is against public policy. On such niceties are lawyer’s fortunes made, See Pannick and the prorogation of parliament.
Parliament (via treasury counsel) needs to be very aware of the wording of the bill to overcome certain possible objections. This issue is meat and drink to Human Rights lawyers.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I suppose we will see soon enough.
 
KS55 said:
The fact that something is in a Bill/Act doesn’t mean it is automatically enforceable at court if, for example it amounts to a restraint of trade or otherwise is against public policy. On such niceties are lawyer’s fortunes made, See Pannick and the prorogation of parliament.
Parliament (via treasury counsel) needs to be very aware of the wording of the bill to overcome certain possible objections. This issue is meat and drink to Human Rights lawyers.
Click to expand...
Spoke to a private practice solicitor recently who was responsible for helping draft some legislation a few years back, who told me the Parliamentary draftsmen are top class lawyers. Only seriousl smart graduates need apply. They have to be in the job for at least five years before they get directly involved in drafting legislation.

It’s a huge deal when you think about it!
 
cheekybids said:
If it were up to me I’d say something.

Now how many times have I wished I’d just kept my powder dry & realise I’d made things worse….. maybe they are right after all.
Click to expand...
Haha... Sometimes silence speaks louder than words mate. Regardless of what we say, opposition fans & the media pundits who want us gone would only reply with "Well they would say that, wouldn't they".

City giving a running commentary is pointless imo. Leave the fuckers to believe what they want & trust that we'll win out at the end of the process.

This witchhunt seems as politically futile as Joe Biden's Congressional hearings for taking bribes, where after 15 months of hearings, MAGA haven't offered a shred of evidence.

Having a cat in hell's chance of proving anything was never MAGA's plan. They're merely trying to besmirch Biden's name & character enough to cause voter doubt, along with electoral & reputational damage, & I see the PL's pursuit of us being just as futile, but with the same reputational damage intent.

Fuckin bastards!
 
KS55 said:
The fact that something is in a Bill/Act doesn’t mean it is automatically enforceable at court if, for example it amounts to a restraint of trade or otherwise is against public policy. On such niceties are lawyer’s fortunes made, See Pannick and the prorogation of parliament.
Parliament (via treasury counsel) needs to be very aware of the wording of the bill to overcome certain possible objections. This issue is meat and drink to Human Rights lawyers.
Click to expand...

Just on this again, the legal analysis of the Bill I posted earlier said this: "Placing this on a statutory footing will avoid competition law challenges to the prohibition". Although they do add a footnote: "Though there may be other challenges based on international treaties etc".

Don't know how true any of that is. Not my area of expertise.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Just on this again, the legal analysis of the Bill I posted earlier said this: "Placing this on a statutory footing will avoid competition law challenges to the prohibition". Although they do add a footnote: "Though there may be other challenges based on international treaties etc".

Don't know how true any of that is. Not my area of expertise.
Click to expand...
It’s possible that we’ve finally found a Brexit benefit!
 
Just seen that Etihad Airways are thinking of going on the stock market thingy. Apparently that is good news for us because it means Etihad Airways accounts will be open to everyone.

The article states that Etihad Airways wouldn't be doing this if they had committed fraud with City in the sponsorship deal.

www.mirror.co.uk

City sponsors' plan deals big twist amid Premier League's 115 financial charges

Manchester City are facing 115 charges from the Premier League for breaking financial regulations but the club's owners could potentially navigate the charges with a fresh idea
www.mirror.co.uk www.mirror.co.uk
 
Bez said:
Thanks for sharing. Interesting content, but what an utterly crass headline title for this article. Total clickbait material.

"Man City owners hatch new plan to combat threat of Premier League's 115 financial charges"

Surely the IPO decision is up to Etihad's owners, not Man City's, and secondly if there is nowt to hide, which I am sure is the case, our evidence will be enough to combat the ridiculous charges from the PL.
Click to expand...
Maybe something like this will stop the case from dragging on until 2027.
 
give it to gordon said:
Just seen that Etihad Airways are thinking of going on the stock market thingy. Apparently that is good news for us because it means Etihad Airways accounts will be open to everyone.

The article states that Etihad Airways wouldn't be doing this if they had committed fraud with City in the sponsorship deal.

www.mirror.co.uk

City sponsors' plan deals big twist amid Premier League's 115 financial charges

Manchester City are facing 115 charges from the Premier League for breaking financial regulations but the club's owners could potentially navigate the charges with a fresh idea
www.mirror.co.uk www.mirror.co.uk
Click to expand...
Oh for the good old days of the Titanic pics….
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top