PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[halfcenturyup]

Being an x rockape I can second that

And I thought rockape meant you lived in Gibraltar ....

 

[BlueRockape]

Assuming he’s a witness. It’s perfectly conceivable he isn’t. Difficult to tell in the absence of any particulars around the evidential basis for the charges.

Can Panick demand his appearance?

 

[Milesvk]

Being an x rockape I can second that

I was on 2 sqn, we jumped out of them.
And we didn't gaurd any on SFSG.

 

[nmc]

City employ something like 1300 people, probably 90% of these are just normal people with mortgages and families to feed

Yep… These wankers want the club to be crushed into oblivion and these ‘normal people’ to lose their livelihoods

I think the Rags have clearly demonstrated how they respect ‘normal people with mortgage’s’ etc….

 

[Rory Bluelow]

Just read that, must have a work experience kid in this week at the Telegraph. He got 10/10 for spelling bless him.

Read that also. Sets new standards of total bollocks. They must be worried. The Telegraph Sports section is like a Liverpool fanzine and always good for a laugh.

 

[BlueRockape]

I was on 2 sqn, we jumped out of them.
And we didn't gaurd any on SFSG.

Missed that one I was on 15 so they didn't trust us anywhere near them ;)

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

In fact thinking about it, the less witnesses the PL has, the better.

There is no point Masters coming along and giving evidence on the decision making process to charge City, as it has no probative evidential value. The only PL witnesses who will have any evidential value are those who can attest to the substance of the charges as they have witnessed something material that supports them, or because they are an expert in a relevant field, presumably in finance.

What are Masters, or any of the PL hierarchy going to add evidently to the charges, other than in relation to non-cooperation?

It’s possible they can, of course, but struggling to see how.

 

[BlueRockape]

And I thought rockape meant you lived in Gibraltar ....

In Spain but not Gibraltar.
It's a nickname given during ww2 when the squadron stationed there fed the apes so I believe

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Can Panick demand his appearance?

Assuming this hearing is subject to the Arbitration Act 1996, then under section 43, and with the agreement of the tribunal City can apply (I think to the High Court) for a witness summons but there would have to be a compelling and specific evidential purpose for that application to be granted, not simply on the basis of a fishing expedition. It would have to be in the interests of justice to compel someone to attend, presumably against their will.

So highly unlikely I would say.

 

[slbsn]

In fact thinking about it, the less witnesses the PL has, the better.

There is no point Masters coming along and giving evidence on the decision making process to charge City, as it has no probative evidential value. The only PL witnesses who will have any evidential value are those who can attest to the substance of the charges as they have witnessed something material that supports them, or because they are an expert in a relevant field, presumably in finance.

What are Masters, or any of the PL hierarchy going to add evidently to the charges, other than in relation to non-cooperation?

It’s possible they can, of course, but struggling to see how.

I agree. The only other issue I think the PL witnesses may be important is if the PL deny knowledge of certain matters at the time. That is likely to be clear in the documents but if not, say, City's witness say they were discussed orally and the PL says they have no record of such a discussion, then some witness cross examination may be necessary. I'd say quite difficult to see how Masters has any meaningful evidence at all on the substantive matters. So PL witnesses (aside from expert witnesses) are largely a red herring.

NB: Masters did give a witness statement for Everton on the points recommendation from the PL's standpoint so that may be relevant but it is unlikely a) for this initial IC b) something for cross examination - it is more a submission by the PL.