PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Pam said:
This is what happens when you pad up charges to absurd levels and duplicate most of them. Piss-take is not the word. I hope the PL bustards go bust on account of lunatic levels of legal fees. It's pathetic beyond words.
Click to expand...
Yes reaping what they sow. The comment last week about the PL being surprised about how aggressive we have been sort of backs this up.

“So you are going to address all 130 charges? We just threw some of them in for bantz”
 
Manc in London said:
My missus, a Spurs ST holder for many years, had to meet him in relation to her job. She said he had an incredibly limp handshake, in which he lightly held the end of her hand (top half of her fingers) and it lasted less than a couple of seconds. Eurgh.
Click to expand...
That’s premature ejaculation for you - so I’m told…!
 
Chris in London said:
There are three points which I think are worth emphasising on the issue of delay.

The first is that while we don’t know the identity of the panel it is highly likely that it contains at least two senior legal figures, quite possibly retired high court (or higher) judges. It is quite possible that they were already booked in to do other cases, commercial arbitrations for instance, so writing the decision up is something they have to fit around other their commitments. Which are unlikely to be simple cases themselves

the second thing is that the probability is that for the last 40 years these guys have been accustomed to taking August off. All of it. So chances are the panel isn’t hard at work crafting the 500 page decision we are all expecting. They’re actually sitting on the verandas of their houses in Tuscany and Provence watching the sun go down over a nice glass of Chianti/Bordeaux/whatevs

The third thing is that in a typical PL piece of shut-door-after-horse-has-bolted legislation they have stipulated that in the future appointees to disciplinary panels will be required to certify that they are able to give the appointment the necessary time to complete their work in a timely fashion. Which means the PL isn’t quite sure howling this one should have taken, but they think it’s too long and they are blaming the panel for having other things to do and taking August off.

I doubt delay in itself is either a positive or a negative. It is what it is. It just means we aren’t likely to get a decision in the next couple of weeks at least
Click to expand...
I'm grateful to my learned friends @Chris in London and @slbsn for taking time out from their summer holidays in Provence to educate us in these matters.
 
Chris in London said:
There are three points which I think are worth emphasising on the issue of delay.

The first is that while we don’t know the identity of the panel it is highly likely that it contains at least two senior legal figures, quite possibly retired high court (or higher) judges. It is quite possible that they were already booked in to do other cases, commercial arbitrations for instance, so writing the decision up is something they have to fit around other their commitments. Which are unlikely to be simple cases themselves

the second thing is that the probability is that for the last 40 years these guys have been accustomed to taking August off. All of it. So chances are the panel isn’t hard at work crafting the 500 page decision we are all expecting. They’re actually sitting on the verandas of their houses in Tuscany and Provence watching the sun go down over a nice glass of Chianti/Bordeaux/whatevs

The third thing is that in a typical PL piece of shut-door-after-horse-has-bolted legislation they have stipulated that in the future appointees to disciplinary panels will be required to certify that they are able to give the appointment the necessary time to complete their work in a timely fashion. Which means the PL isn’t quite sure howling this one should have taken, but they think it’s too long and they are blaming the panel for having other things to do and taking August off.

I doubt delay in itself is either a positive or a negative. It is what it is. It just means we aren’t likely to get a decision in the next couple of weeks at least
Click to expand...
As long as that miserable bastard Tony Hatch isn't on the panel, we should be OK ;-)
 
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