PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Ban-jani said:
They don’t know the result, but they’ll know whether City have or haven’t done it and how they performed getting the case across defending City.

My view is that the club obviously knows they haven’t done it and that Pannick and co. did a very good job in giving evidence to defend the club, that’s why they’re acting confidently and still showing ambition. It’s also why they’re still convincing in demand players to join us.
Click to expand...
I'm just about to go out to a party at which one of my fellow guests is a retired judge. A big blue as well. I'm going to ask him about how he viewed trials or other hearings, once all the evidence has been heard but before a verdict was reached.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
I'm just about to go out to a party at which one of my fellow guests is a retired judge. A big blue as well. I'm going to ask him about how he viewed trials or other hearings, once all the evidence has been heard but before a verdict was reached.
Click to expand...
Or get pissed and wear a traffic cone.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
I'm just about to go out to a party at which one of my fellow guests is a retired judge. A big blue as well. I'm going to ask him about how he viewed trials or other hearings, once all the evidence has been heard but before a verdict was reached.
Click to expand...
Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to drop a couple of Es, smoke copious ganja and mither all the 20 year old dolly birds?
 
johnny crossan said:
Does anybody actually think that our stellar legal counsel, after spending two and a half months defending us at the panel over a year ago, still don't have a scooby about the result?
Click to expand...
You are not allowed to question the legal viewpoint. Our team would have had a good steer regarding the hearing based on evidence presented by both parties but nothing is confirmed so they don’t know.

Khaldoon hasn’t been told anything at all by Pannick. He is too busy answering emails from bluemoon.

So what you got to say about that? -:)
 
Will this shit ever end.
The cartel tried to stich us up and failed.
Either way I don't really care.
An arsenal fan on a wattsapp group put on after we lost in mid week.
It was the worst result in man city's 15 year history.

I put back a picture of tiny book with the European cups winners cup.
All I put was mcfc no history.
Guilty or not which we all know we're not.
I don't care either way just say you bunch of bent bastards
 
The agenda is spilling over onto the pitch. We have clearly won and the league has decided that we should be reffed to a stricter set of rules than the rest. Injuring our players is allowed, it’s a sure way of stopping a winning team.

Subjective must mean stop city by using bullshit reasoning that can be reasoned away.
 
Last edited:
Stoned Rose said:
Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to drop a couple of Es, smoke copious ganja and mither all the 20 year old dolly birds?
Click to expand...
It wasn't that sort of party, but I am a little inebriated. Anyway, my retired judge friend laughed when I posed the question and said "You're very naïve. The panel will have read through the evidence before the hearing even started, and pretty well made up their minds then. The hearing was purely for clarification and they will have definitely had a pretty firm view after that".

So despite having heard nothing concrete for 12 months, the broad outcome was clear 12 months ago.
 
wolviedinho said:
The agenda is spilling over onto the pitch. We have clearly won and the league has decided that we should be reffed to a stricter set of rules that’s the rest. Injuring our players is allowed, it’s a sure what of stopping a winning team.

Subjective must mean stop city by using bullshit reasoning that can be reasoned away.
Click to expand...
Do you really think that all refs are in on a conspiracy?

Come on fella, you honestly think that shit. Not a chance all refs would be complicate in this nonsense.
 
mcfc64 said:
This has exactly been my thought for a few months.
Probably the best legal team any money could buy , they must have a very good idea !
Click to expand...

Well, apparently, if they have a very good idea then we must accept that they know, according to the definition of the word (or at least how it's used in this thread) .....

And yet, we are told that they don't know. I am so confused :)
 
Betterdeedthan red said:
Will this shit ever end.
The cartel tried to stich us up and failed.
Either way I don't really care.
An arsenal fan on a wattsapp group put on after we lost in mid week.
It was the worst result in man city's 15 year history.

I put back a picture of tiny book with the European cups winners cup.
All I put was mcfc no history.
Guilty or not which we all know we're not.
I don't care either way just say you bunch of bent bastards
Click to expand...
84,569 is usually a good response to no history
 
HalfwayUpTheKippax said:
Image paying £2700 for the frizz top only for the legal profession to move out of the 17th century and do away with them! Mind you, considering it must be a taxable expense, it will be small change for our learned friends.
Click to expand...
Yes, tax deductible. It’s like the difference between economy plus and first class on a long-haul flight though. The difference in price is so stark, it doesn’t seem worth it.

The other thing about that price differential, is that counsel who are best placed to afford the frizz top wig, namely commercial barristers, are the ones that will wear them most infrequently, as they are only required in the Crown Court, Administrative Court (Judicial Review) High Court and Court of Appeal. And not the Supreme Court notably! Oh, and fast and multi track track trials too tbf. I reckon most commercial barristers wear their wig and gown less than a dozen times a year, whereas a criminal barrister will wear theirs well over 100 times a year.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
It wasn't that sort of party, but I am a little inebriated. Anyway, my retired judge friend laughed when I posed the question and said "You're very naïve. The panel will have read through the evidence before the hearing even started, and pretty well made up their minds then. The hearing was purely for clarification and they will have definitely had a pretty firm view after that".

So despite having heard nothing concrete for 12 months, the broad outcome was clear 12 months ago.
Click to expand...

Don't think anyone is debating whether the Panel know. The discussion was whether the Club and/or PL know (vs believe or feel).
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
It wasn't that sort of party, but I am a little inebriated. Anyway, my retired judge friend laughed when I posed the question and said "You're very naïve. The panel will have read through the evidence before the hearing even started, and pretty well made up their minds then. The hearing was purely for clarification and they will have definitely had a pretty firm view after that".

So despite having heard nothing concrete for 12 months, the broad outcome was clear 12 months ago.
Click to expand...
Absolutey agree with you mate.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
It wasn't that sort of party, but I am a little inebriated. Anyway, my retired judge friend laughed when I posed the question and said "You're very naïve. The panel will have read through the evidence before the hearing even started, and pretty well made up their minds then. The hearing was purely for clarification and they will have definitely had a pretty firm view after that".

So despite having heard nothing concrete for 12 months, the broad outcome was clear 12 months ago.
Click to expand...
Everyone knows Murray Rosen chose the panel. But not the exact date. So how can your judge friend know they would have read through thousands upon thousands of evidence. Is it possible they heard the witnesses first and have taken away all the paperwork to decide their outcome. Just doesn’t seem feasible that it would take this long had they read the evidence first
 
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