FFP charges? | Page 133 | Vital Football

FFP charges?

Pope John XXIII said:
Spot on

And I think this needs to be the crux of our appeal.

Regardless of whether the Premier League were correct to disallow our figures or not, the fact that they had them in December but did not inform us they were disallowing them until nearly 7 months later is absolutely critical.

A sale for Johnson absolutely could have been lined up for mid June had we been informed of this in January rather than early June.

On what basis is that delay and late notice acceptable or reasonable conduct by the Premier League?

I suspect the argument will be thrown out because it feels more and more like this is a massive stitch up from the start
Click to expand...

I'm hoping the problem they have caused themselves now though is they have as good as documented their own downfall in here for us. They specifically say we knew we were sailing closer to the wind and were reckless leaving ourselves in a position of only being able to sell Johnson to cover our losses. That is completely untrue at any point before they changed the goal posts. It takes away their whole argument we were acting recklessly surely. We can illustrate we had control of the level risk we were aware of as we could have sold other players to cover a lower loss. Our argument should surely be we acted robustly in the best interests of both rules and our own sustainability by keeping options open on the Johnson sale to maximise profit. I'd imagine had they not changed the goal posts we could have seen O'Brien sold to Sheffield United for example. That was a sale I remember us turning down.

Also suspect it will be thrown out and even we get points added as more and more you look and here it's a complete ambush on us.
 
chandos9 said:
The Premier League was represented by Jane Mulcahy KC, who is in the same Chambers as De Marco ( and Manchester City's KC, Pannick), and she is Deputy Head of it. She would appear to be someone not to be trifled with.
Click to expand...
It what world is it acceptable that KC defending Man City can sit on a panel to pass a judgement on a club that competes in the same league as them?
 
Geedo61 said:
It what world is it acceptable that KC defending Man City can sit on a panel to pass a judgement on a club that competes in the same league as them?
Click to expand...
Couldn't agree more. It seems to me that these Barristers just treat the legal system as their own private game where all they are interested in is coring points off each other & getting one up on their opponents
 
seasider red said:
Couldn't agree more. It seems to me that these Barristers just treat the legal system as their own private game where all they are interested in is coring points off each other & getting one up on their opponents
Click to expand...

Why would you expect a profession that claims to have the most integrity but actually has zero integrity to be any better/ different?
 
seasider red said:
Couldn't agree more. It seems to me that these Barristers just treat the legal system as their own private game where all they are interested in is coring points off each other & getting one up on their opponents
Click to expand...
Like most professions and certainly those in academic professional bodies they love scoring points off each other and social climbing by beating a colleague however when the chips are down and the system is attacked they close ranks and serve there own.
 
Polly 433 said:
Like most professions and certainly those in academic professional bodies they love scoring points off each other and social climbing by beating a colleague however when the chips are down and the system is attacked they close ranks and serve there own.
Click to expand...

I wish they would sever their own.
 
seasider red said:
Couldn't agree more. It seems to me that these Barristers just treat the legal system as their own private game where all they are interested in is coring points off each other & getting one up on their opponents
Click to expand...
Our appeal is validated on this point alone - there is a clear conflict in interests
 
Geedo61 said:
It what world is it acceptable that KC defending Man City can sit on a panel to pass a judgement on a club that competes in the same league as them?
Click to expand...
Neither of them was on the panel; Jane Mulcahy KC was representing the Premier League against De Marco KC for Forest, and David Pannick KC is retained to represent Manchester City.

My point (and I have made it before) is that out of all of these people from Blackstone Chambers, Nottingham Forest appear to have chosen our barrister in the same way as we make our striker signings.

Here is what Blackstone Chambers have to say about their barristers making money from being on all sides of this : https://www.blackstonechambers.com/news/the-premier-league-v-nottingham-forest-fc/

And there is a link to the decision itself, so you can see who was who. The actual chair of the Commission was a KC from another Chambers.
 
Last edited:
chandos9 said:
Neither of them was on the panel; Jane Mulcahy KC was representing the Premier League against De Marco KC for Forest, and David Pannick KC is retained to represent Manchester City.

My point (and I have made it before) is that out of all of these people from Blackstone Chambers, Nottingham Forest appear to have chosen our barrister in the same way as we make our striker signings.
Click to expand...

Might as well have hired a barista.
 
chandos9 said:
Neither of them was on the panel; Jane Mulcahy KC was representing the Premier League against De Marco KC for Forest, and David Pannick KC is retained to represent Manchester City.

My point (and I have made it before) is that out of all of these people from Blackstone Chambers, Nottingham Forest appear to have chosen our barrister in the same way as we make our striker signings.

Here is what Blackstone Chambers have to say about their barristers making money from being on all sides of this : https://www.blackstonechambers.com/news/the-premier-league-v-nottingham-forest-fc/

And there is a link to the decision itself, so you can see who was who. The actual chair of the Commission was a KC from another Chambers.
Click to expand...
Apologies - that is not how it read to me.

De Marco has a very good reputation as a sports lawyer, employed by a top level law firm. What do you base your opinion on his credentials?

I still stick to my assertion that De Marco and the team have played this brilliantly - by offering our full cooperation the EPL have put all of their cards on the table and it is clear that there are many holes in their case - which we would not have known about had we not cooperated.
They cannot change their statements as they are now public record and published in the report. This now gives us the opportunity to structure our appeal for maximum impact and benefit
 
ZedRed said:
Might as well have hired a barista.
Click to expand...
It is not unusual in English law, for solicitors from same chamber be on opposite sides. Unlike American legal system they do not work for same firm and are not partners. They are self employed. This is often the case in a small but specialist field of law such as sport or football.
 
Polly 433 said:
It is not unusual in English law, for solicitors from same chamber be on opposite sides. Unlike American legal system they do not work for same firm and are not partners. They are self employed. This is often the case in a small but specialist field of law such as sport or football.
Click to expand...
I will have to take your word for it.
I don't profess to have any dealings with barristers - and long may it continue
 
Geedo61 said:
I will have to take your word for it.
I don't profess to have any dealings with barristers - and long may it continue
Click to expand...
The only winners from PSR as it stands other than the big 6 always was going to be and is showing to be the case is the Lawyers! The league has lost integrity and the season has basically been spoilt. Well done Premier league. Can anybody disagree that with this and the implementation of VAR football has lost a lot of its enjoyment?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.