Not necessarily. If the panel were to agree that Etihad and other Abu Dhabi-based sponsors weren't related parties (as an example, assuming that's part of the charges) then I doubt they'd have to make that decision 50+ times, to cover multiple years and rules.There are at least 115 separate charges. Each one will need 3 separate decisions or is this incorrect?
Thanks for reply, on the point of multiple charge for same "offence", would the Panel be able to comment on how this has been allowed to drift year upon year.Not necessarily. If the panel were to agree that Etihad and other Abu Dhabi-based sponsors weren't related parties (as an example, assuming that's part of the charges) then I doubt they'd have to make that decision 50+ times, to cover multiple years and rules.
It's highly doubtful that they'd decide they were a related party in 2010. but not in 2015. Or they were a related party for the purposes of Rule X.1 but not for X.2.
? No idea. Makes sense though.There are at least 115 separate charges. Each one will need 3 separate decisions or is this incorrect?
You think the PL will be able to stop 3 KC's making pertinent comments? That's the bit I'm looking forward to the most after the actual verdicts.Thanks for reply, on the point of multiple charge for same "offence", would the Panel be able to comment on how this has been allowed to drift year upon year.
If they knew it was an offence yesteryear what possible reason is there to allow it to continue?
That is exactly why! Fair play.Bœuf, Porc, Mouton, Coq
Probably comes from the age of the Normans where the rich spoke French. The lower classes, Old English speaking, would have eaten chicken and other fowl more often due to cost.
Given we're nearing 12,000 pages in old money, I wouldn't hold it against anyone asking (not that you'll likely miss it).I love it when this thread goes off on a random tangent. Ten pages used up in quick time, followed by a glut of posters not bothering to check, asking if the decision has dropped.
Surely each charge just needs one decision which the panel have to agree on (unanimously or by majority). Imagine all three writing up separate decisions on every single charge and then trying to work out an overall judgement for each one, it would be impossible.? No idea. Makes sense though.
Above my pay grade.
Thanks for reply. Sorry I did edit my post to mention the inconvenience it causes the KCs so hopefully annoy them as well.You think the PL will be able to stop 3 KC's making pertinent comments? That's the bit I'm looking forward to the most after the actual verdicts.
If "they" is the Premier League, at the point the charges were brought they were all historical so they didn't allow them to continue rather they had only just discovered them.Thanks for reply, on the point of multiple charge for same "offence", would the Panel be able to comment on how this has been allowed to drift year upon year.
If they knew it was an offence yesteryear what possible reason is there to allow it to continue?
Unless of course it is part of allegations to deliberately clog up the Appeal System.
I have to thank Melvyn Bragg and/or Bill Bryson for that knowledge. I think it was the former in his book The Adventure of English.That is exactly why! Fair play.
If we had been Arsenal or Man I and a new regime came in to vet them I would agree with you but we have had multiple eyes on us for years so perhaps your reasoning is unlikely but thanks for reply.If "they" is the Premier League, at the point the charges were brought they were all historical so they didn't allow them to continue rather they had only just discovered them.
You think the PL will be able to stop 3 KC's making pertinent comments? That's the bit I'm looking forward to the most after the actual verdicts.
OK but even accepting your conspiracy theory you said:-If we had been Arsenal or Man I and a new regime came in to vet them I would agree with you but we have had multiple eyes on us for years so perhaps your reasoning is unlikely but thanks for reply.
The allegations run from 2009(2008?) through to 2018 which is when the emails were dropped by Der Spiegel. I still have no idea where that leaves us with 2018 on if we're found guilty on some charges (excluding Mancini ect).Thanks for reply, on the point of multiple charge for same "offence", would the Panel be able to comment on how this has been allowed to drift year upon year.
If they knew it was an offence yesteryear what possible reason is there to allow it to continue?
Unless of course it is part of allegations to deliberately clog up the Appeal System.
At CAS they had "The panel finds..." comments, I didn't mean individual comments.I think the way they write the award is just "The commission finds ....", there will be no discussion of individual opinions or even an indication of unanimity or dissention. At least, iirc, there hasn't been in previous awards.
I suppose in a way rather than being inconvenienced by it the KCs are grateful for the extra work they can charge out as one offs rather than having to group them together.I think the way they write the award is just "The commission finds ....", there will be no discussion of individual opinions or even an indication of unanimity or dissention. At least, iirc, there hasn't been in previous awards.
At CAS they had "The panel finds..." comments, I didn't mean individual comments.