PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Where did the time go?

December the hearing finished, March the legal teams must have had some idea how it was going hence the noise. Khaldoon and pep have been giving a steer and the rest of the time is spent now writing it up.

I’m sure they have all had a chat about it over a brandy in their little clubs, going around for dinner and out on cocaine binges -:)

People will always talk, not to anyone but you can’t stop it. The lawyers all mix in the same circles.

It will be a lengthy written piece of legal substance, hang it in the Louvre with Jack or build a 115 statute so we can all take pics of the tribunals judgement.
 
Legalamb777 said:
If hopefully City are fully exonerated,don’t expect them two twats White & Jordan to cover the story with the same exuberance as they have with the bringing of the charges,it’ll be a 10 minute segment and then move on,and even the 10 min segment will ONLY consist of the brown envelope angle….
Click to expand...
There could well be a "kicked into the long grass/swept under the carpet" segment too......
 
Gordyola said:
IIRC Chair was appointed by CAS the other two were selected from the CAS pool City chose one, the other was suggested by City to UEFA who agreed Not sure how they voted
The media have wrongly accused City of selecting all the judges
Click to expand...
Not quite. Each side appointed one panel member then they had to agree on the chair. City proposed Rui Botica Santos and UEFA agreed to that. There was only a limited pool to choose from anyway.

That snake Conn twisted it as City choosing two of the three judges, which was patently mendacious. And even if they had, it's a slur on the professionalism and integrity of the members that, even if they were both chosen exclusively by City, they'd automatically take our side.

Funnily enough he hasn't mentioned us since then. I like to think someone had a stern word with him over that.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
Not quite. Each side appointed one panel member then they had to agree on the chair. City proposed Rui Botica Santos and UEFA agreed to that. There was only a limited pool to choose from anyway.

That snake Conn twisted it as City choosing two of the three judges, which was patently mendacious. And even if they had, it's a slur on the professionalism and integrity of the members that, even if they were both chosen exclusively by City, they'd automatically take our side.

Funnily enough he hasn't mentioned us since then. I like to think someone had a stern word with him over that.
Click to expand...
Nothing to do with City but judges are often bent. Look at the state of how the US Supreme Court works, it’s like something from a tin pot dictatorship.
 
wolviedinho said:
Where did the time go?

December the hearing finished, March the legal teams must have had some idea how it was going hence the noise. Khaldoon and pep have been giving a steer and the rest of the time is spent now writing it up.

I’m sure they have all had a chat about it over a brandy in their little clubs, going around for dinner and out on cocaine binges -:)

People will always talk, not to anyone but you can’t stop it. The lawyers all mix in the same circles.

It will be a lengthy written piece of legal substance, hang it in the Louvre with Jack or build a 115 statute so we can all take pics of the tribunals judgement.
Click to expand...
Yes indeed. The longer this "seisimic" case verdict wait goes on the more it points to the level of the reprocusions that will occur because of the result of it, hence the delay in releasing it.

IF we were fuked we would have been well and truly hung, drawn, quartered and relegated by now, jobs a goodun, farewell you blue bstards, laterz gaitors etc.

However the fallout of a "City win" for the epl gimps/ red cartel hamsters will be something entirely different . . .
 
Johnny Mars Bar said:
Nothing to do with City but judges are often bent. Look at the state of how the US Supreme Court works, it’s like something from a tin pot dictatorship.
Click to expand...
But in the USSC the Presidents appoint the judges and know the political position of the judges, so they know that they're likely to be supportive of their agenda and pick appointees accordingly. They're also part of the court until they retire or die.

Personally I think you can't call the American judicial system truly independent because of this.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
But in the USSC the Presidents appoint the judges and know the political position of the judges, so they know that they're likely to be supportive of their agenda and pick appointees accordingly. They're also part of the court until they retire or die.

Personally I think you can't call the American judicial system truly independent because of this.
Click to expand...
I agree
 
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