PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

Just because we dont know a timescale doesnt mean the PL and club doesnt. And niether has any obligation to share that information.
 
We have won a game , will there be a special on Talkshite or a exclusive insider show on the new charges found , 1115 and counting :)
 
So my theory is this.

I have always maintained that when @slbsn disappears for a few days then the award is due to be published, on the following grounds. He is consistently asking his sources if it's received or not and has been told, not in confidence, that it hasn't been.

So what happens when it has been received? His sources either tell him in confidence that it has, in which case he can't tell us as he won't want to break the confidence or he lies to us, and only a fool would think that, because then it would seem like he was wrong - the lawyer's worst nightmare. Or his sources tell him it has been received with no confidentiality and we would know about it. Or, his sources tell him nothing or lie to him, in which case he is smart enough to spot that and know what it means. He still won't want to ruin his sources relationship. Knowledge is power.

Unless I am wrong, which let's face it has happened before, he hasn't posted since his last stinging response to me on Saturday.

Conclusion, the award has been received for review and will be published, taking into its length, after about a week. Meaning Cheeseman was right and we will all know the outcome at the end of this week, or the beginning of next. Or, in the words of the immortal bard, it's imminent.

All hail King ITK Cheesey.

Of course, the above could all be bollocks.
 
halfcenturyup said:
So my theory is this.

I have always maintained that when @slbsn disappears for a few days then the award is due to be published, on the following grounds. He is consistently asking his sources if it's received or not and has been told, not in confidence, that it hasn't been.

So what happens when it has been received? His sources either tell him in confidence that it has, in which case he can't tell us as he won't want to break the confidence or he lies to us, and only a fool would think that, because then it would seem like he was wrong - the lawyer's worst nightmare. Or his sources tell him it has been received with no confidentiality and we would know about it. Or, his sources tell him nothing or lie to him, in which case he is smart enough to spot that and know what it means. He still won't want to ruin his sources relationship. Knowledge is power.

Unless I am wrong, which let's face it has happened before, he hasn't posted since his last stinging response to me on Saturday.

Conclusion, the award has been received for review and will be published, taking into its length, after about a week. Meaning Cheeseman was right and we will all know the outcome at the end of this week, or the beginning of next. Or, in the words of the immortal bard, it's imminent.

All hail King ITK Cheesey.

Of course, the above could all be bollocks.
Click to expand...
1 -1000 it’s bollocks…..a grand on,you’ll make a quid profit
 
halfcenturyup said:
So what happens when it has been received? His sources either tell him in confidence that it has, in which case he can't tell us as he won't want to break the confidence or he lies to us, and only a fool would think that, because then it would seem like he was wrong - the lawyer's worst nightmare.
Click to expand...
A lawyer’s worst nightmare should be having their professional integrity called into question, most especially being accused of not having their client’s best interests at heart. That’s far more reprehensible than being wrong, which can often be simply a function of unforeseeable circumstances; people’s careers can, and frequently do recover from being wrong, as long as certain criteria are absent.

I personally feel that an inveterate inability to accept being wrong is a sign of severe mental weakness and a hugely unattractive characteristic to possess; not just in lawyers, but more generally.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
I personally feel that an inveterate inability to accept being wrong is a sign of severe mental weakness and a hugely unattractive characteristic to possess; not just in lawyers, but more generally.
Click to expand...

Generally, yes, I would agree. But lawyers? I'm not so sure. Present company excepted, of course.

My experience is that lawyers skillfully couch everything they say in a way that let's them claim they were right even when it's "clear" they were wrong. Even Pannick's email to @Paladin , which seemed clear enough, I have to scrutinise word by word to read what they are actually trying to say. Or not say, of course.

But I am happy to accept that that is just my experience and, possibly, my neuroses coming through :)
 
halfcenturyup said:
So my theory is this.

I have always maintained that when @slbsn disappears for a few days then the award is due to be published, on the following grounds. He is consistently asking his sources if it's received or not and has been told, not in confidence, that it hasn't been.

So what happens when it has been received? His sources either tell him in confidence that it has, in which case he can't tell us as he won't want to break the confidence or he lies to us, and only a fool would think that, because then it would seem like he was wrong - the lawyer's worst nightmare. Or his sources tell him it has been received with no confidentiality and we would know about it. Or, his sources tell him nothing or lie to him, in which case he is smart enough to spot that and know what it means. He still won't want to ruin his sources relationship. Knowledge is power.

Unless I am wrong, which let's face it has happened before, he hasn't posted since his last stinging response to me on Saturday.

Conclusion, the award has been received for review and will be published, taking into its length, after about a week. Meaning Cheeseman was right and we will all know the outcome at the end of this week, or the beginning of next. Or, in the words of the immortal bard, it's imminent.

All hail King ITK Cheesey.

Of course, the above could all be bollocks.
Click to expand...
You were dong well until you used the I word ;)
 
halfcenturyup said:
So my theory is this.

I have always maintained that when @slbsn disappears for a few days then the award is due to be published, on the following grounds. He is consistently asking his sources if it's received or not and has been told, not in confidence, that it hasn't been.

So what happens when it has been received? His sources either tell him in confidence that it has, in which case he can't tell us as he won't want to break the confidence or he lies to us, and only a fool would think that, because then it would seem like he was wrong - the lawyer's worst nightmare. Or his sources tell him it has been received with no confidentiality and we would know about it. Or, his sources tell him nothing or lie to him, in which case he is smart enough to spot that and know what it means. He still won't want to ruin his sources relationship. Knowledge is power.

Unless I am wrong, which let's face it has happened before, he hasn't posted since his last stinging response to me on Saturday.

Conclusion, the award has been received for review and will be published, taking into its length, after about a week. Meaning Cheeseman was right and we will all know the outcome at the end of this week, or the beginning of next. Or, in the words of the immortal bard, it's imminent.

All hail King ITK Cheesey.

Of course, the above could all be bollocks.
Click to expand...

1769494884045.png
 
halfcenturyup said:
My experience is that lawyers skillfully couch everything they say in a way that let's them claim they were right even when it's "clear" they were wrong. Even Pannick's email to @Paladin , which seemed clear enough, I have to scrutinise word by word to read what they are actually trying to say. Or not say, of course.
Click to expand...
Don’t disagree with what you’ve posted here, and any competent legal professional will provide caveats to their advice where appropriate (although it should always be clear what they are advising) as that is generally in their clients’ best interests, as we don’t live in a world of black and white, but that doesn’t undermine my response to what you posted, namely what is a lawyer’s ‘worst nightmare’. Being exposed as a fraud, or as professionally dishonest or working contrary to your client’s best interests is far, far worse than being wrong, for multiple reasons.

Pannick’s putative email is a non-sequitur as it isn’t strictly part of his professional duties. At best it is ancillary to them.
 
halfcenturyup said:
So my theory is this.

I have always maintained that when @slbsn disappears for a few days then the award is due to be published, on the following grounds. He is consistently asking his sources if it's received or not and has been told, not in confidence, that it hasn't been.

So what happens when it has been received? His sources either tell him in confidence that it has, in which case he can't tell us as he won't want to break the confidence or he lies to us, and only a fool would think that, because then it would seem like he was wrong - the lawyer's worst nightmare. Or his sources tell him it has been received with no confidentiality and we would know about it. Or, his sources tell him nothing or lie to him, in which case he is smart enough to spot that and know what it means. He still won't want to ruin his sources relationship. Knowledge is power.

Unless I am wrong, which let's face it has happened before, he hasn't posted since his last stinging response to me on Saturday.

Conclusion, the award has been received for review and will be published, taking into its length, after about a week. Meaning Cheeseman was right and we will all know the outcome at the end of this week, or the beginning of next. Or, in the words of the immortal bard, it's imminent.

All hail King ITK Cheesey.

Of course, the above could all be bollocks.
Click to expand...
As far as theories go, it’s a theory!
 
In the past few years we've gone from plain old 4-4-2 football fans, to master tacticians of low blocks and phases of play, thence progressing into the world of geo-political machinations, sports-washing and high finance.

Now we are in our Perry Mason years, poring over legal minutia, dissecting the smallest shreds of 'evidence' and looking for nuance and meaning everywhere.

God I miss the days of 'lump it forward to the big man'.
 
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