well we don't know if the pleadings or whatever they call it was also wrong. Perhaps the PL's press team had an earlier version or something. It is sloppy but in the context of a 6 year process (so far) I would not give it the credence you suggest. They clearly have very capable lawyers both in the PL and, particularly, externally.Not sure it could be characterised as irrelevant as to the competence and efficacy of the charging authority, which has to potentially bear some relevance to the weight and likelihood of success of the charges.
If the charging authority can’t get the pleadings right, how can they be expected to have the wherewithal to get the charges home?
If you read some PoCs that were manifestly wrong would you, ceteris paribus, view it as irrelevant to the prospects of success in the claim?
If someone can’t get the basics right and then it’s usually a sign of wider failings.
Old issue, very questionable there is any case, can hardly be said it was hidden when it was previously called Manchester City Image Rights, had its office at the Etihad and certain City execs as directors but in fairness I haven't spent much time on it over the years - just never looked very significant to me.Why doesn't Fordham justify a case on it's own?
Despite Gvardiol’s best efforts we managed to go in at HT (and subsequently FT) with a clean sheet…Don't know what you are referring to re 0 LEI.
Don't think the 186 is saying the disciplinary is about RPTs - it may be but can't read such a redaction that way. I ask again though why the PL wouldn't have challenged the none RPT status of Etihad in any year since 2009 but make it a point in 2023. And if so, why not add a breach of the true and fair for each season since 2017/18 on this basis.
City would have engaged with whatever was a) required b) they felt served their purposes to convince the PL to cease the investigation. But it would not provide documents that would open up disclosure routes down the line ie it would only disclose documents it was always going to have to disclose if it went further.
I guess it’s down to whether the press release was a legal or PR failing but it’s hard to see how the latter could operate in a vacuum.well we don't know if the pleadings or whatever they call it was also wrong. Perhaps the PL's press team had an earlier version or something. It is sloppy but in the context of a 6 year process (so far) I would not give it the credence you suggest. They clearly have very capable lawyers both in the PL and, particularly, externally.
Again, I may be being naive on this one too and giving the other side far too much credit.
He beat up Simon on Talksport in a most reserved manner!I guess it’s down to whether the press release was a legal or PR failing but it’s hard to see how the latter could operate in a vacuum.
And the wider failings of the PL when applying their own rules should also be weighed into the balance. It’s not like they’ve ever given the appearance of authority when it comes to applying their own rules.
I’m sure the legal professionals the PL have instructed are more than capable, but what makes you believe the in-house bods are?
And I don’t think someone as manifestly cautious as you would ever be correctly characterised as naive. I think that would be, to some extent, a contradiction in terms. You are naturally cautious and reserved when expressing your views. That is distinct from being naive.
Best way to do it if you can pull it off!He beat up Simon on Talksport in a most reserved manner!
If you say so ;-). Naively or cautiously, I don't believe the PL are morons and that small mistakes are made frequently without indicating a level of incompetence that some suggest.I guess it’s down to whether the press release was a legal or PR failing but it’s hard to see how the latter could operate in a vacuum.
And the wider failings of the PL when applying their own rules should also be weighed into the balance. It’s not like they’ve ever given the appearance of authority when it comes to applying their own rules.
I’m sure the legal professionals the PL have instructed are more than capable, but what makes you believe the in-house bods are?
And I don’t think someone as manifestly cautious as you could ever be correctly characterised as naive. I think that would be, to some extent, a contradiction in terms. You are naturally cautious and reserved when expressing your views. That is distinct from being naive.
Not sure I would characterise that as a small mistake. I’d be mortified to be associated with it, and I’d be surprised if you weren’t too.If you say so ;-). Naively or cautiously, I don't believe the PL are morons and that small mistakes are made frequently without indicating a level of incompetence that some suggest.
Do you think that decision to charge was formed wholly extraneous to any legal advice?I don't see how you can assess the competence of lawyers at this moment. What we can question is the independence of the Premier League in charging MCFC.
It's impossible to know but the UEFA case suggests that football rivalry is a big part of such decision-making.Do you think that decision to charge was formed wholly extraneous to any legal advice?
It will be considered inessential by the two learned posters, but well done for pointing it out;-)Can we please spell naïve correctly please? Thank you.
Firstly, thank you so much for your legal input into this thread. It’s been enlightening say the least- irrelevant really
- irrelevant
- sloppy but irrelevant
- I think the allegation is that City concealed matters so should also suffer the consequences of that in all rules if proven
I don't think any of these play to the question of ignoring legal advice on the City charges. But as I said, perhaps I am just naive.
Do you think City will be relegated ? @slbsn
I would also add that the timing of PL announcements plays into this cynicism. They tend to be on the eve of big games. Again, suggestive of an agenda by the clubs that form part of the PL and are calling the shots.Firstly, thank you so much for your legal input into this thread. It’s been enlightening say the least
I’d certainly not call you naive, but some of our opposition have been proven to not play with a straight bat, shouldn’t the be taken into consideration, regardless of their standing in the business world?
It’s been proven that FSG certainly have a history of not playing by the rules in the US & UK, Joe Lewis at Tottenham definitely doesn’t, Abramovich didn’t, Kroenke doesn’t
(Don’t know about any other owners)
So there’s 4 clubs with owners whom have all had a history of not playing by the rules
Plus we have the hateful 8 letter, again indicating that some of our fellow PL shareholders aren’t playing fair
So I suppose my question is, could a number of clubs, let’s say 8 for arguments sake, put pressure on the PL to follow this through regardless?
Or do I need more/less meds?
<puts head in hands>
Let's not forget that the PL had legal advice that shareholder soft loans should be included within its Associated Party Transaction rules. Yet it chose to ignore that advice at the behest of the chairman of one of its members.Firstly, thank you so much for your legal input into this thread. It’s been enlightening say the least
I’d certainly not call you naive, but some of our opposition have been proven to not play with a straight bat, shouldn’t the be taken into consideration, regardless of their standing in the business world?
It’s been proven that FSG certainly have a history of not playing by the rules in the US & UK, Joe Lewis at Tottenham definitely doesn’t, Abramovich didn’t, Kroenke doesn’t
(Don’t know about any other owners)
So there’s 4 clubs with owners whom have all had a history of not playing by the rules
Plus we have the hateful 8 letter, again indicating that some of our fellow PL shareholders aren’t playing fair
So I suppose my question is, could a number of clubs, let’s say 8 for arguments sake, put pressure on the PL to follow this through regardless?
Or do I need more/less meds?
They could I suppose, if they were happy knowing they’re picking up 1/20th of the tab for a doomed lot of legal costsFirstly, thank you so much for your legal input into this thread. It’s been enlightening say the least
I’d certainly not call you naive, but some of our opposition have been proven to not play with a straight bat, shouldn’t the be taken into consideration, regardless of their standing in the business world?
It’s been proven that FSG certainly have a history of not playing by the rules in the US & UK, Joe Lewis at Tottenham definitely doesn’t, Abramovich didn’t, Kroenke doesn’t
(Don’t know about any other owners)
So there’s 4 clubs with owners whom have all had a history of not playing by the rules
Plus we have the hateful 8 letter, again indicating that some of our fellow PL shareholders aren’t playing fair
So I suppose my question is, could a number of clubs, let’s say 8 for arguments sake, put pressure on the PL to follow this through regardless?
Or do I need more/less meds?