Even if the 2 year ban gets thrown out IMO it will have held up our buying of the top talent.
I've thought that circumnavigating the rules ie exploiting its loopholes was like tax avoidance ie perfectly legal. Tax laws are then tightened so another loophole found.It shouldn't be. If we can show that ADUG wasn't the originator but the conduit then I'd hope we would be OK. Naturally UEFA would probably try to change the rules again no doubt.
The context is, as the audited accounts show, that the mails reflect a conversation, not what was actually done.Or our owner weighed up what his ADUG team were proposing and said ok you've gone as far as you can lets simplify it. I'll have a word with my dad..
No issues there is the general rule, although the client would need to be made aware and consent. Certainly the general rule in crime you can defend someone you’ve previously prosecuted, but not the other way round, unless consent is given by the defendant and the court, maybe if the previous occasion was something relatively trivial and unconnected, like an unposed bail application from years ago, for example. It’s probably best to avoid creating a rod for your own back either way if poss.Out of interest, what about acting for a client that you had previously acted against, any rules there?
I'm not sure that City's transfer plans have been massively effected by this (for the moment). I'm guessing that a 2 year ban will obviously change that, but if they don't get a ban then things will carry on as normal with no effect.
Thanks my friend.The context is, as the audited accounts show, that the mails reflect a conversation, not what was actually done.
(How many more times?!)
No, I meant @Exeter Blue I am here . Your example may well be exactly what happened. Too often even blues fall into the Leterme trap and assume, ab initio, that the mails describe what we did. No wonder he didn't bother to look at our evidence.Thanks my friend.
Sorry if my limited ageing mind is unable to adsorb your oft repeated reasoning. I will try to keep up to speed in future.
So you're arguing that what Etihad paid city was not in accordance with the contract and that City just inflated it to suit circumstances at the time?It was claimed earlier in the thread that Etihad may have front loaded payments to suit City's cash flow requirements and it was stated it would make no difference at what stage the money was paid once it was the right amount within the contract period. That isn't really compatible with a struggling business that needs propping up by the state. Bringing forward financial obligations wouldn't be considered normal, especially to an unrelated party.
Given that particular email you can see why UEFA would want to look into it, and not just pressure from those that are ‘out to get us’. Anyway this is before City’s evidence is considered and before their loud claims universally of no wrongdoing.Why is it unlikely that Sheikh Mansour financed the Etihad deal? The hacked emails suggest he did exactly that and City have never denied their authenticity, merely their context. And having looked at them again yesterday I’m really struggling to see how they might have been taken out of context as claimed. They come from senior members of the City hierarchy and contain very precise instruction on the movement of money between ADUG and Etihad. If we’re going to take this ban down, then it seems (to my untrained eye) that it’ll have to be on one of the regulatory/technical/whatever you want to call them, grounds that Projectriver outlined in that 93:20 podcast he did