If that were the case, the wait would then by default mean charges were viable.
See last post by @slbsn
So this drags on, affecting form, any rebuild and possibly the mental health of many supporters. Great. Oh...and the "atmosphere' obsessives can fck right off.
So we're only assuming a delay because we've all heard from 'ITKs' that the result will be imminent, but in actual fact, there may be zero delay and it's just taking as long as it does? Haha this is getting silly.But nobody knows how long the wait should "normally" be, so no particular length of waiting time really means anything. More than three months, I would imagine ....
Certainly not enough to get worked up about.
We will find out soon enough.
How did you interpret what he said then mate?He didn't say anything of the sort
So we're only assuming a delay because we've all heard from 'ITKs' that the result will be imminent, but in actual fact, there may be zero delay and it's just taking as long as it does? Haha this is getting silly.
How did you interpret what he said then mate?
Neither, more like thursday night specials!!So are we going to the Championship or Champions League next season ?
It'll be useful if a list of the most destructive rebuttals were posted on here so that when they're delivered the recipients are knocked speechless with one verbal punch !!It's a great point that you make about the fans. How many conversations has the average blue had with rival fans having a pop at the club (with no actual knowledge of the charges) since they were announced?
It's boring, repetitive and unproductive, but also an inevitable topic of conversation. I'm so sick of the whole thing, and I'm not naive enough to think it all goes away, even if we're cleared of absolutely everything. The narrative then will shift to 'got away with it' 'expensive lawyers' etc. Trial by media has done the damage to City, regardless of the actual legal process.
As much as I'd love to see a Khaldoon masterclass where he systematically dismantles the charges and celebrates us being cleared, the people who need to see it will ignore it. The damage has already been done. It's then going to be about how Pep and the players respond, and given how Pep has carried all of this and fronted up to client journalists every single week, plus Haaland's comments about not being worried about the charges when signing his bumper new contract, hopefully the people that matter will be able to put it behind them quickly and have a little extra motivation for getting us back in contention for the big prizes.
No not necessarily. Probable that even if they don't publish reasons until after a sanction hearing we hear something about liability. But sooner a decision is out the better for City as I have said before. The problem is we don't know what is early. As I have said many times in the High Court we wouldn't be seeing a decision in 2025. In an effective arbitration we simply don't know the timescales.Are you saying that if we don't hear anything in the foreseeable the likely implication is that the findings of the initial hearing are being held back until the findings of the sanctioning hearing are released?
And by extension, that means we're more likely to have been found against for the more serious charges than the non-cooperation allegations?
Thanks.
In layman’s then are you basically saying we might hypothetically have been cleared of all the main charges, been hit with a non-cooperation charge, and now awaiting our “punishment” for that being decided before the release of the information? Then of course we may well appeal?Tbf to the guy, nobody can prove anything because it's all been heard second or third hand. We should all just take it that way.
Of course, it would be better to say "I've heard the club stopped co-operating" rather than "the club stopped co-operating" and "I've heard the club doesn't have the judgment yet" rather than "the club doesn't have the judgment yet". But we are where we are with social media these days.
Personally, I think the most interesting thing we have heard recently is the shift in opinion from @slbsn from (paraphrasing) "we will hear the liability judgment and then wait for any sanction" to this: "I'd say the only outstanding question on this is whether we get the liability decision released before any sanction hearing (if any) and if so whether it has any redaction of note. There is a chance that the reasoned decisions are both held back to be released upon the conclusion of the sanction decision. I think this is what the FA did in the recent Nottingham Forest case."
If that is right, and it makes sense to me, we all still have a very long wait.
No not necessarily. Probable that even if they don't publish reasons until after a sanction hearing we hear something about liability. But sooner a decision is out the better for City as I have said before. The problem is we don't know what is early. As I have said many times in the High Court we wouldn't be seeing a decision in 2025. In an effective arbitration we simply don't know the timescales.
I am not suggesting THIS wait means that. Just that if it did go straight to the sentencing stage before any verdict was announced, it would suggest some of the substantive charges went against us.But nobody knows how long the wait should "normally" be, so no particular length of waiting time really means anything. More than three months, I would imagine ....
Certainly not enough to get worked up about.
We will find out soon enough.
It'll be useful if a list of the most destructive rebuttals were posted on here so that when they're delivered the recipients are knocked speechless with one verbal punch !!
But then surely we go back to the fact that IF the Prem had won on some substantive charges then the leaks would have started, so no news is still good news, lol.I am not suggesting THIS wait means that. Just that if it did go straight to the sentencing stage before any verdict was announced, it would suggest some of the substantive charges went against us.
Whilst I think it is more likely they do release a full reasoned decision at each stage, these rules do not make that clear. It is not impossible that an interim or partial decision (ie liability) is not a final determination or that under W.49 the parties agree not to release it to keep a lid on the speculation pending the sanction decision.Section W of the Rules say
W.48. In the case of a determination at a hearing the Commission’s decision shall be announced as soon as practicable thereafter and if possible at the end of the hearing and shall be confirmed in writing by the chair of the Commission to the parties (and copied to the Chair of the Judicial Panel).
and then
W.50. Upon finding a complaint to have been proved the Commission shall invite the Board and the Respondent to place any mitigating and/or aggravating factors before the Commission.
My reading of these rules is that the commission has to issue a Judgement and then we have the sanctions.
CorrectHe was speaking hypothetically, I reckon he believes the verdict simply hasn't been reached yet or if it has neither party has received it.
I didn'tHe didn't say anything of the sort