PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

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...
So if they've known for ages why are they taking so long?
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
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.
Click to expand...
If I’d spent 27 bags on one of these cunts I’d wear it every fucking where. I’d bounce round Aldi in it, wear it whilst boning my Mrs, sit in the Colin Bell in it and go to funerals in the ****.
 
Does Man City and premier get to see the outcome before it goes public? If so, who’s to say we scanned it complained about part of it that they point out is factually wrong then they can’t release it! Now if that happened they throw in a NDA that they can’t say anything at all even telling people that they haven’t had it yet!
 
Stoned Rose said:
If I’d spent 27 bags on one of these cunts I’d wear it every fucking where. I’d bounce round Aldi in it, wear it whilst boning my Mrs, sit in the Colin Bell in it and go to funerals in the ****.
Click to expand...
You'll get thrown out if the stewards see you. Probably more exciting than the second half though.
 
Stoned Rose said:
If I’d spent 27 bags on one of these cunts I’d wear it every fucking where. I’d bounce round Aldi in it, wear it whilst boning my Mrs, sit in the Colin Bell in it and go to funerals in the ****.
Click to expand...
Ha, I’d love to see that!

Would give you the impunity to argue with anyone from a position of holier than thou condescension - handy for forcing a manager’s discount at the shops

It would probably also get you the social media nickname Judge Dread… as everyone would see you coming and groan, ‘not that full of himself fucker again’.

Great publicity stunt, if that’s your thing…
 
whipper said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think you mean 'complicit'. I agree with you but what about a 'subconscious bias'?. The media have found us guilty as charged on the 115. Talk to anyone on the street and the verdict is already signed, sealed and delivered.

In this toxic environment where the Refs and VAR can be used against us, it means we have to win convincingly in every game, just to overcome it.
 
waspish said:
Does Man City and premier get to see the outcome before it goes public? If so, who’s to say we scanned it complained about part of it that they point out is factually wrong then they can’t release it! Now if that happened they throw in a NDA that they can’t say anything at all even telling people that they haven’t had it yet!
Click to expand...
Yes to the first part, no to the second. @slbsn is coming after you for the second part BTW ;)
 
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...
The 'Citys 15 year history' part actually made me laugh to be fair
 
Coatigan said:
Don't think anyone is debating whether the Panel know. The discussion was whether the Club and/or PL know (vs believe or feel).
Click to expand...
I'm simply relaying a conversation I had. The point was that the strong likelihood is that the panel know the outcome and have done for more than 12 months. They're not still sitting there debating the finer points of the charges.

eastlandsblue said:
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
Click to expand...
Doesn't matter what date he chose them. The fact is that they didn't start the hearing blind. They will have needed to read the paperwork BEFORE the hearing started, not after it finished. What you suggest is simply not a possibility. This was someone who has actually done this stuff.
 
Last edited:
half & half derby scarf said:
I think you mean 'complicit'. I agree with you but what about a 'subconscious bias'?. The media have found us guilty as charged on the 115. Talk to anyone on the street and the verdict is already signed, sealed and delivered.

In this toxic environment where the Refs and VAR can be used against us, it means we have to win convincingly in every game, just to overcome it.
Click to expand...

I think since we got 100 points and showed the rest of the league up, refs have been under subtle pressure to allow 'lesser' teams to 'compete' with us. As they could never do that in footballing terms, they had to be allowed to try extra hard to win the ball, by being more physical. So we get fouled and refs shrug it off, we get poor decisions go against us, well it's the price of being so good. It certainly isn't an even playing field.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
I'm simply relaying a conversation I had. The point was that the strong likelihood is that the panel know the outcome and have done for more than 12 months. They're not still sitting there debating the finer points of the charges.


Doesn't matter what date he chose them. The fact is that they didn't start the hearing blind. They will have needed to read the paperwork BEFORE the hearing started, not after it finished. What you suggest is simply not a possibility. his was someone who has actually done this stuff.
Click to expand...

Yeah, totally agree. Don't think that was ever in question. The time taken to formalise and write it all up into a published verdict is different to the time to 'decide' it.
 
KS55 said:
I understand that this case is now known in legal circles as ‘Jarndyce 2’
Click to expand...
Bleak for a Sunday -:)

Sure they ain’t talking about Sean dyche v allardyce? The art of the long throw?…

Can anyone really explain what’s going on? They must be trying to make a deal on this. Or already have made a deal and now it needs written up carefully so both sides don’t come out looking like the loser.

Know ideas how they will do that, maybe they don’t either and hence no written decision.
 
LongsightM13 said:
Apparently Cheeseman was telling all and sundry yesterday that it’s expected next week or the start of the week after
Click to expand...

Hear anything about Cheeseman's travelling pal, Paul from Prestige repairs, who was tweeting yesterday that he has been banned from the Etihad? He was the dick who tweeted a few months back that we'd got off :)
 
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...
That may well be true, but having a provisional view on liability does not imply unanimity. A panel can reach the hearing with a broadly shared framework while still being divided on key charges, thresholds, or the appropriate scope of any findings.

Quite apart from the sheer scale of the case, and setting aside practical factors such as other professional commitments or holidays, internal disagreement is likely the single biggest reason we are still waiting for a decision. Where panel members are not aligned, the process becomes one of narrowing, re-drafting, and stress-testing the reasoning against appeal risk, rather than simply finalising conclusions.
 
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