PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

hilts said:
3 year anniversary coming up soon, mental, nothing should take that long to sort out.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't worry about it. You can't change the outcome whatever it might be. Initial thoughts were they were trying to stop City breaking all those records, reaching titles on the bounce and so on but that ship's sailed anyway.

I'm just surprised the PL tried to do it as one big case rather than hit is with a series of charges very season, thereby reaching a faster conclusion for each case and the ability to stop us in our tracks if they won, i.e. by deducting points every season.
 
halfcenturyup said:
:) The Board and the auditors have always considered a significantly negative outcome to be remote otherwise the issue would have been handled differently in the last two years. So, imho, the only soft signal is that they haven't become significantly more negative.

Anyway, we have done this to death.

As for your first paragraph, the words "verdict", "delivered" and "delay" are doing a lot of heavy lifting. As you think there is a delay, what do you think is causing it?

And, I have to ask, are you using AI to write this stuff for you? :)
Click to expand...
Agreed — that’s true. The difference for me is simply that this is the first report after the hearing concluded. At that point the Board has a more informed view of the range of outcomes, so unchanged language carries a bit more weight than it did previously.

Regarding the “delay”, I don’t think it’s anything more exotic than process. These things take time.

AI? I can’t even turn on the blender :)
 
cheekybids said:
Don’t forget Richard Arnold was Rags CEO when the charges were laid…..

Only Hogan at the Dippers is still in position from the cartel.
Click to expand...
Perhaps they are giving a decent time interval between each resignation to show they are.not linked but City happy. Then it allows Mr Masters to be held totally responsible and serve his scapegoat duty.

Just theoretical of course in the absence of anything else explaining time passing.
 
Keith Moon said:
But I think we can safely rule out that a verdict has already been delivered, and that the delay is about damage control.
Click to expand...

I don’t believe it’s been delivered but I do think the the verdict & evidence provided was so obvious I believe it’s now about damage control.

Unlike the legal eagles who use knowledge & evidence I’m just a conspiracy theorist who believes the worlds made up of very rich corrupt unscrupulous cunts & law & corporations work together.

I gave AI my opinion & asked for an example where similar had happened & it provided below. I know AI makes mistakes so haven’t verified & yes I know it’s different but it matches my theory.

UK Government — Chilcot Inquiry (Iraq War) (2009–2016)

Timeline

• June 2009 — Inquiry announced.
• 2011 — Evidence phase complete.
• 2012–2015 — Report ready, but repeatedly delayed.
• July 2016 — Report finally published.


Why the delay?

To allow:

• political turnover
• military leadership changes
• public emotion to cool
• institutional reputations to stabilise
 
cheekybids said:
I don’t believe it’s been delivered but I do think the the verdict & evidence provided was so obvious I believe it’s now about damage control.

Unlike the legal eagles who use knowledge & evidence I’m just a conspiracy theorist who believes the worlds made up of very rich corrupt unscrupulous cunts & law & corporations work together.

I gave AI my opinion & asked for an example where similar had happened & it provided below. I know AI makes mistakes so haven’t verified & yes I know it’s different but it matches my theory.

UK Government — Chilcot Inquiry (Iraq War) (2009–2016)

Timeline

• June 2009 — Inquiry announced.
• 2011 — Evidence phase complete.
• 2012–2015 — Report ready, but repeatedly delayed.
• July 2016 — Report finally published.


Why the delay?

To allow:

• political turnover
• military leadership changes
• public emotion to cool
• institutional reputations to stabilise
Click to expand...
That was a government ordered public inquiry.

Thus is an internal disciplinary issue.

Not remotely comparable
 
Chris in London said:
That was a government ordered public inquiry.

Thus is an internal disciplinary issue.

Not remotely comparable
Click to expand...

I know, my comment was I know it’s different but matches my theory that the law & adjudicators allow things to happen before publishing. I know when us laypersons voice an opinion it can be frustrating for lawyers but I see law & process not followed on the world stage so forgive me throwing my hat in.
 
KS55 said:
The accounts make it clear that no verdict had been delivered by the day of publication; a note would have been issued for a last minute verdict.
Click to expand...

:) Again, the words "verdict" and "delivered" are doing a lot of heavy lifting. There are many ways for information to pass between the panel and the parties without a formal verdict being formally delivered. And many possible reasons for it. I don't see anything particularly conspiratorial in that view or anything contradictory to the messages being given, apparently, by the club, the PL and their lawyers

Fwiw, I still tend to believe that it is just taking this long, but I have to be consistent. With each passing day, month, season, my belief is being stretched to its limit. And the likelihood increases imho that something significant is going on that we don't know about.

In the same way we were told when the initial APT verdict came out that it wasn't a convincing win, but there seemed to be more going on than we knew about. And there was, wasn't there ....?
 
halfcenturyup said:
Fwiw, I still tend to believe that it is just taking this long, but I have to be consistent. With each passing day, month, season, my belief is being stretched to its limit. And the likelihood increases imho that something significant is going on that we don't know about.

In the same way we were told when the initial APT verdict came out that it wasn't a convincing win, but there seemed to be more going on than we knew about. And there was, wasn't there ....?
Click to expand...
Good or bad???
 
KS55 said:
The accounts make it clear that no verdict had been delivered by the day of publication; a note would have been issued for a last minute verdict.
Click to expand...

:) Again, the words "verdict" and "delivered" are doing a lot of heavy lifting. There are many ways for information to pass between the panel and the parties without a formal verdict being formally delivered. And many possible reasons for it. I don't see anything particularly conspiratorial in that view or anything contradictory to the messages being given, apparently, by the club, the PL and their lawyers

Fwiw, I still tend to believe that it is just taking this long, but I have to be consistent. With each passing day, month, season, my belief is being stretched to its limit. And the likelihood increases imho that something significant is going on that we don't know about.

In the same way we were told when the initial APT verdict came out that it wasn't a convincing win, but there seemed to more going on than we knew about. And there was, wasn't there ....?
 
halfcenturyup said:
:) Again, the words "verdict" and "delivered" are doing a lot of heavy lifting. There are many ways for information to pass between the panel and the parties without a formal verdict being formally delivered. And many possible reasons for it. I don't see anything particularly conspiratorial in that view or anything contradictory to the messages being given, apparently, by the club, the PL and their lawyers

Fwiw, I still tend to believe that it is just taking this long, but I have to be consistent. With each passing day, month, season, my belief is being stretched to its limit. And the likelihood increases imho that something significant is going on that we don't know about.

In the same way we were told when the initial APT verdict came out that it wasn't a convincing win, but there seemed to more going on than we knew about. And there was, wasn't there ....?
Click to expand...

The history of inquiries has two polar timeliness.
When all parties want to reach a verdict they are quick.
When one or more parties don't want a conclusion they last a little longer.
Blood scandal, post office, covid are examples of the latter. Though Grenville may prove to be the Daddy.
 
cheekybids said:
I know, my comment was I know it’s different but matches my theory that the law & adjudicators allow things to happen before publishing. I know when us laypersons voice an opinion it can be frustrating for lawyers but I see law & process not followed on the world stage so forgive me throwing my hat in.
Click to expand...
I think your point is valid. Both parties will have prepared plans to manage every eventuality. And both sides have seen all the evidence so will have a good idea of what is coming down the line.
 
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