meltonblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 14 May 2013
- Messages
- 6,294
The fact they published their guilt in the accounts is why they were punished.
Well yes that too, I meant as an additional contributing factor.
The fact they published their guilt in the accounts is why they were punished.
Pretty sure the PL accused Everton of not co-operating and the IC found in favour of Everton on that - in fact, the IC were quite scathing of the PL on that particular issue.It doesn’t read like it given his comment on it, reads like he’s saying it’s referring to us.
Don’t think Everton were done for non co-operation, theirs was misleading information wasn’t it?
I didn’t pay too much attention to the [The Club] and assumed it’s just legal shit, but that would be hilarious if he’s just on the wind up
Pretty sure the PL accused Everton of not co-operating and the IC found in favour of Everton on that - in fact, the IC were quite scathing of the PL on that particular issue.
With reference to your first bit, I don't think it's about us - Stefan himself has posted on here since that tweet, saying "give it an hour and you'll enjoy it" or words to that effect. That suggests it's definitely not referring to us but he's implying that it is as a ploy to reel in opposition fans!
Has this come from a press release?This is almost a childlike response, can't believe they've exposed themselves so badly by issuing this
Not usInteresting.
"The Club] has consistently pushed back on the PL’s requests. For example, [the Club] initially provided disclosure only in PDF format, without metadata; [the Club] provided “load files” but no “parent / child relationships” were identified between documents, which [the Club] refused to resolve, instead saying that it would respond to any specific queries; when the PL raised such queries, it took two weeks to respond, and [the Club] again refused to provide parent / child relationships; and certain disclosure requests remain outstanding"
They are cheeky bastards. The club is quite right to "push back" and respond "only to specific requests". It's a central tenet of investigations, and good practice, that requirements (or requests) should be "specific" and relevant. We haven't seen the "requests", but unless the original "request" asked specifically for the metadata there's no way it should have been volunteered.
Secondly, asking for the metadata implies a belief on the part of the PL that the material that had been provided, had been tampered with. A serious allegation to make unless you have good grounds for believing it to be the case.
As for taking two whole weeks to respond, in the context of a 4 year enquiry, that's hardly heinous and even less, so if it corresponded to a holiday period.