PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Eric Hitchmough said:
What do you make of the Cheeseman stuff, Stefan?

Hard to believe someone on the periphery of the club could be privy to such sensitive information?
Click to expand...
Chinese whispers or pure nonsense. Either way, ignore.

Certainties:

- Hearing has gone on a long time so the vast majority of the serious charges have remained in play throughout - it is not normal to have a commercial hearing take 3-4 months - it demonstrates the complexity and seriousness and shows the amount of witness evidence that was heard (mainly witnesses of fact being cross examined)
- Hearing has been conventional in English law stages and process - openings, witnesses cross examination, experts, closings
- City remain confident - I put this here in certainties because I’ve heard it from so many different people
- Individual charge numbers are irrelevant anyway
 
slbsn said:
Chinese whispers or pure nonsense. Either way, ignore.

Certainties:

- Hearing has gone on a long time so the vast majority of the serious charges have remained in play throughout - it is not normal to have a commercial hearing take 3-4 months - it demonstrates the complexity and seriousness and shows the amount of witness evidence that was heard (mainly witnesses of fact being cross examined)
- Hearing has been conventional in English law stages and process - openings, witnesses cross examination, experts, closings
- City remain confident - I put this here in certainties because I’ve heard it from so many different people
- Individual charge numbers are irrelevant anyway
Click to expand...

Do we know for a fact when the hearing was paused before summation? If it was beginning or end November probably makes a big difference to how long the evidential phase was. There were certainly "rumours" that the hearing had finished at the beginning of November. Maybe that was when it was paused?

Just wishful thinking on my part that that phase finished earlier than expected, I suppose, but I would like your view on it anyway.

Don't be afraid to tell me it's bollocks, as per usual :)
 
chris85mcfc said:
But she would have told him?

Tbf I'm not sure she's high enough up at City to be given any information, so I'm saying it's bollocks anyway.
Click to expand...
I was told the night before the CAS verdict came out that that’s where the info came from. I posted it on here at the time and I’ve still got the date stamped WhatsApps that I can send to you if you want ;)
 
M18CTID said:
I was told the night before the CAS verdict came out that that’s where the info came from. I posted it on here at the time and I’ve still got the date stamped WhatsApps that I can send to you if you want ;)
Click to expand...

It would have been impossible to keep it from any employees, tbf. I am pretty sure the senior execs weren't walking around with serious neutral faces once they had access to the embargoed judgment. They wouldn't have needed to tell anyone, it would have been obvious from their demeanour. Which, iirc, was Cheeseman's point on the Friday.
 
ganganvince said:
View attachment 139796
Click to expand...
I’m not sure why he’s denying saying it. He definitely told my mate on Sunday. That mate then asked @tolmie's hairdoo who he’s known for 30 years or more if he’d heard anything about it. Tolmie will be able to verify that side of things - that this mate asked him about the 40 point deduction story and if there was anything in it.
 
M18CTID said:
I’m not sure why he’s denying saying it. He definitely told my mate on Sunday. That mate then asked @tolmie's hairdoo who he’s known for 30 years or more if he’d heard anything about it. Tolmie will be able to verify that side of things - that this mate asked him about the 40 point deduction story and if there was anything in it.
Click to expand...
Because it's bollocks most likely
 
slbsn said:
Chinese whispers or pure nonsense. Either way, ignore.

Certainties:

- Hearing has gone on a long time so the vast majority of the serious charges have remained in play throughout - it is not normal to have a commercial hearing take 3-4 months - it demonstrates the complexity and seriousness and shows the amount of witness evidence that was heard (mainly witnesses of fact being cross examined)
- Hearing has been conventional in English law stages and process - openings, witnesses cross examination, experts, closings
- City remain confident - I put this here in certainties because I’ve heard it from so many different people
- Individual charge numbers are irrelevant anyway
Click to expand...
Clearly a common sense post based on knowledge of how these things work.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Do we know for a fact when the hearing was paused before summation? If it was beginning or end November probably makes a big difference to how long the evidential phase was. There were certainly "rumours" that the hearing had finished at the beginning of November. Maybe that was when it was paused?

Just wishful thinking on my part that that phase finished earlier than expected, I suppose, but I would like your view on it anyway.

Don't be afraid to tell me it's bollocks, as per usual :)
Click to expand...
We don’t know for sure which day the adjournment started but the hearing wouldn’t pause for weeks and weeks. The hearing has run 3-4 months in some form but even if it’s 2.5 months the point is the same.
 
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