City launch legal action against the Premier League | Club & PL reach settlement | Proceedings dropped (p1147)

SWP's back said:
Because he’s GC of one of the largest teams on the planet and will have only sent that letter after full discussions with the rest of our legal team.

Out of interest, why wouldn’t he?
Click to expand...
I think the comparison between Cliff and any legal professional extraneous to the process is a valid one, as he will have a much better command of the facts and will fully understand what the issues are.
 
MCFC1993 said:

Haha, we're trying to run the league, that is funny!


The point about APT is interesting though, seems to be confusion about the structure altogether now. Quite clear that it won't be a quick fix at an emergency meeting that the PL is hoping for.
Click to expand...


It sounds like we've got them by their short and curlies.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
I’ve just checked the author, Christian Smith, out on LinkedIn.


His only practical experience in the UK was as an associate for three years for a sports law firm called Solesbury Gay Limited, that ceased operating whilst he was there and whose licence to practise was revoked the month afterwards, following which he appears to have decided to engage in a career in journalism. It’s not clear why their licence was revoked, but at best I would suggest it was because they were unable to generate enough work to meet their regulatory obligations, at worst because of matters of professional misconduct. If they been moved on as a going concern then I wouldn’t expect to see a revocation, especially so promptly. SRA link here:

www.sra.org.uk

Register of licensed bodies - Solesbury Gay Limited 648998

Solesbury Gay Limited - 648998, Linstead House, 9 , Disraeli Road, , Putney, London, , SW15 2DR
www.sra.org.uk

He didn’t attain his legal qualifications in the UK (New Zealand) and whilst that of itself isn’t a bar to having a successful legal career in this country, it’s certainly a worthwhile factor to consider when taken in conjunction with someone’s career achievements.

So, based on the foregoing I would say he has insufficient real and practical experience on the subject matter to hold a legal opinion that should be given any meaningful weight. The extent of his practical legal experience was as an associate for a firm that failed, following which he decided to switch careers.

That will have entailed a huge reduction in his potential earnings. Not holding that against anyone, but it is perfectly reasonable to take that into account when evaluating what weight to attach to an article where he offers his opinion on a finding of law and its implications. It’s perfectly reasonable to conclude that if his opinions and analysis were worthwhile then he’d still be in practice. And he’s not.

So his assessment may not be biased, but personally speaking, in the context of being invited to give it any weight, I don’t think it’s worth a wank.
Click to expand...
He is excellent on their podcast and very clearly is well connected in the legal community in England. As the article states, he spoke to leading lawyers to build his article. The article is a well written and balanced piece as far as I can see unless he lied that he spoke to competition silks. He has certainly been ahead of the curve on who the players were on the legal teams, where the hearing was being held (The Lawyer got the pictures on Day 1) and had the exclusive that the hearing is a split trial.

I don't think he says anything materially different to your key point about it depending on what City were trying to achieve being the key as to whether they won in their eyes (which I agree with).
 
MCFC1993 said:


Haha, we're trying to run the league, that is funny!


The point about APT is interesting though, seems to be confusion about the structure altogether now. Quite clear that it won't be a quick fix at an emergency meeting that the PL is hoping for.
Click to expand...

Are we trying to run the league, or are we trying to show that the current incumbents are unfit to do so?
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
I’ve just checked the author, Christian Smith, out on LinkedIn.


His only practical experience in the UK was as an associate for three years for a sports law firm called Solesbury Gay Limited, that ceased operating whilst he was there and whose licence to practise was revoked the month afterwards, following which he appears to have decided to engage in a career in journalism. It’s not clear why their licence was revoked, but at best I would suggest it was because they were unable to generate enough work to meet their regulatory obligations, at worst because of matters of professional misconduct. If they been moved on as a going concern then I wouldn’t expect to see a revocation, especially so promptly. SRA link here:

www.sra.org.uk

Register of licensed bodies - Solesbury Gay Limited 648998

Solesbury Gay Limited - 648998, Linstead House, 9 , Disraeli Road, , Putney, London, , SW15 2DR
www.sra.org.uk

He didn’t attain his legal qualifications in the UK (New Zealand) and whilst that of itself isn’t a bar to having a successful legal career in this country, it’s certainly a worthwhile factor to consider when taken in conjunction with someone’s career achievements.

So, based on the foregoing I would say he has insufficient real and practical experience on the subject matter to hold a legal opinion that should be given any meaningful weight. The extent of his practical legal experience was as an associate for a firm that failed, following which he decided to switch careers.

That will have entailed a huge reduction in his potential earnings. Not holding that against anyone, but it is perfectly reasonable to take that into account when evaluating what weight to attach to an article where he offers his opinion on a finding of law and its implications. It’s perfectly reasonable to conclude that if his opinions and analysis were worthwhile then he’d still be in practice. And he’s not.

So his assessment may not be biased, but personally speaking, in the context of being invited to give it any weight, I don’t think it’s worth a wank.
Click to expand...
What I find annoying with jounalistic articles like this, is when they back up their position with quotes from unnamed sources from within. To my mind that just weakens their point.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
I’ve just checked the author, Christian Smith, out on LinkedIn.


His only practical experience in the UK was as an associate for three years for a sports law firm called Solesbury Gay Limited, that ceased operating whilst he was there and whose licence to practise was revoked the month afterwards, following which he appears to have decided to engage in a career in journalism. It’s not clear why their licence was revoked, but at best I would suggest it was because they were unable to generate enough work to meet their regulatory obligations, at worst because of matters of professional misconduct. If they been moved on as a going concern then I wouldn’t expect to see a revocation, especially so promptly. SRA link here:

www.sra.org.uk

Register of licensed bodies - Solesbury Gay Limited 648998

Solesbury Gay Limited - 648998, Linstead House, 9 , Disraeli Road, , Putney, London, , SW15 2DR
www.sra.org.uk

He didn’t attain his legal qualifications in the UK (New Zealand) and whilst that of itself isn’t a bar to having a successful legal career in this country, it’s certainly a worthwhile factor to consider when taken in conjunction with someone’s career achievements.

So, based on the foregoing I would say he has insufficient real and practical experience on the subject matter to hold a legal opinion that should be given any meaningful weight. The extent of his practical legal experience was as an associate for a firm that failed, following which he decided to switch careers.

That will have entailed a huge reduction in his potential earnings. Not holding that against anyone, but it is perfectly reasonable to take that into account when evaluating what weight to attach to an article where he offers his opinion on a finding of law and its implications. It’s perfectly reasonable to conclude that if his opinions and analysis were worthwhile then he’d still be in practice. And he’s not.

So his assessment may not be biased, but personally speaking, in the context of being invited to give it any weight, I don’t think it’s worth a wank.
Click to expand...
That is a beautiful last paragraph.
 
chris85mcfc said:
I'm fairly sure that he said that City would likely not get a positive outcome in this case, but that the 115 case would be a lot more difficult to prove from a prosecutors point of view due to the burden of proof being with the PL, and the starting point being that it would be extremely unlikely that a lot of the charges hold any water at all.

He may have changed stance as more info came to light, but that's the brief that I took from his opinions on Talksport over the last few months.
Click to expand...
Well I rarely tune into Talksport so I can't argue with your opinion which concurs with a lot of others.
 
slbsn said:
He is excellent on their podcast and very clearly is well connected in the legal community in England. As the article states, he spoke to leading lawyers to build his article. The article is a well written and balanced piece as far as I can see unless he lied that he spoke to competition silks. He has certainly been ahead of the curve on who the players were on the legal teams, where the hearing was being held (The Lawyer got the pictures on Day 1) and had the exclusive that the hearing is a split trial.

I don't think he says anything materially different to your key point about it depending on what City were trying to achieve being the key as to whether they won in their eyes (which I agree with).
Click to expand...
That’s all fair comment, and noted, in terms of his ability as a journalist, which I didn’t comment on, but my point remains that if he had an exemplary ability to understand and interpret the law then his CV would look very different.

I cannot comment on the veracity or quality of the sources he cites because they are, understandably, unnamed.

Have you any idea what happened to Solesbury Gay? If it was egregious then you’d expect to find some article in the Law Society Gazette, but there’s nothing. The revocation so soon after ceasing operating is definitely worthy of note. Presumably If they didn’t pay their annual fee to the SRA then the licence would merely expire, not be subject to revocation?
 
slbsn said:
Paramount was nothing to do with APT. Irrelevant.

We know 11 deals took longer than 25 days. At least 3 of those are City. Some of the rest appear to be football APTs are mentioned in the judgment. There are very few other APT deals pending according to the information in the decision.
Click to expand...
Stephan I say that it wasn’t” quite APT” by that I meant it wasn’t referring to the 11 cases but there is a sort of link in that it was blocked because of the PLs association with parties who were / are in direct competition with those associated parties.
 
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