PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

I had Sky Sports news on this morning. They came back from an advert break and the Breaking News banner filled the screen and the presenter said - we've got some very important breaking news

There was a pause and I half expected her to say Manchester City ... but the really important breaking news was only about van nistelroy leaving Leicester
 
Chris in London said:
It's an interesting proposition. Not because the suggestion has any merit, but because the idea that the reason we are waiting for the decision is that City are somehow dragging things out is so ludicrous that it illustrates quite clearly one particular point.

Anyone with the slightest experience of how quasi-judicial tribunals work will know that at this stage both City and the PL have done all they can to influence the process and outcome. The decision is now in the hands of the panel, and many have expressed extremely plausible explanations as to why the decision has taken as long as it has and may take longer still.

I don't blame Jim White for not knowing how these things work, because he's not a lawyer and I can't imagine he has any reason to know how they work. But Jim White does not wander into a studio at five to 10 and shoot from the hip. Their programmes are planned and thought about beforehand and questions like the ones he asked the lawyer from Lawrence Graham will have been talked about beforehand in production meetings. Moreover, a station like talksport has researchers, and other people in the building who could easily put him right on the suggestion that the delay in the decision is the result of some tactical move by City. Moreover Jordan, who is quite likely to have some experience of relatively hefty litigation, is more likely than not to know that neither party can at this stage do anything meaningful in terms of affecting the outcome.

So asking questions like "is this City kicking the can down the road" can only be mischievous. There seems to me to be no other plausible explanation.

TL:DR - this is just talksport shit-stirring.
Click to expand...

You're not bad for a lawyer :)
 
Damocles said:
Chinese do loads.of stuff with eggs. There's egg in jian bing which I try and get every morning when staying with family! Absolutely phenomenal

redhousespice.com

Jian Bing, Chinese crepes (煎饼)

One of the most popular Chinese breakfasts, Jian Bing can be made at home with ease! My recipe includes tips, tricks & a tutorial video.
redhousespice.com redhousespice.com

Wikipedia reckons this food is 2000 years old, though I'd recommend eating it straight from the pan.
Click to expand...

Redhousespice? Rag ....
 
Chris in London said:
It's an interesting proposition. Not because the suggestion has any merit, but because the idea that the reason we are waiting for the decision is that City are somehow dragging things out is so ludicrous that it illustrates quite clearly one particular point.

Anyone with the slightest experience of how quasi-judicial tribunals work will know that at this stage both City and the PL have done all they can to influence the process and outcome. The decision is now in the hands of the panel, and many have expressed extremely plausible explanations as to why the decision has taken as long as it has and may take longer still.

I don't blame Jim White for not knowing how these things work, because he's not a lawyer and I can't imagine he has any reason to know how they work. But Jim White does not wander into a studio at five to 10 and shoot from the hip. Their programmes are planned and thought about beforehand and questions like the ones he asked the lawyer from Lawrence Graham will have been talked about beforehand in production meetings. Moreover, a station like talksport has researchers, and other people in the building who could easily put him right on the suggestion that the delay in the decision is the result of some tactical move by City. Moreover Jordan, who is quite likely to have some experience of relatively hefty litigation, is more likely than not to know that neither party can at this stage do anything meaningful in terms of affecting the outcome.

So asking questions like "is this City kicking the can down the road" can only be mischievous. There seems to me to be no other plausible explanation.

TL:DR - this is just talksport shit-stirring.
Click to expand...
Brinkmanship, how far can we go to attract listeners without risking a court case?
 
Boiled egg with a dollop of marmite on the side. Can only be bettered by dipping a twiglet in said marmite, then into a soft boiled egg for full on enjoyment!
 
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