PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

gordondaviesmoustache said:
As @Chris in London previously alluded members of the judiciary (and by extension members of this panel) can be subject to censure if there are unwarranted delays but “as soon as practicable” is deliberately widely worded to afford the panel wide discretion when making (and writing up) their determination.

The members of the panel will, post hearing, unquestionably align their diaries, and divvy the work of writing the decision up between them, which provides a schedule of sorts, but the timetable will be theirs, and theirs alone to set. This independence is important to maintain their impartiality without undue pressure from outside sources and to ensure that their decision is as appeal proof as possible. And with a panel of three there will be lots of moving parts.
Click to expand...
But surely they have something better than the back of a fag packet estimate, that even though they produce and own, is shared with their customer as a commitment, albeit with caveats. Otherwise how do keep track the delays in order to understand what is warranted and what is unwarranted.

As for the moving parts, you would hope there is some sort of framework to pull it all together rather than through it at the wall and see how long it takes to run down. And liaising with, organising and tracking the inputs and outputs of 3 panel members (and their staff) should be within the capability of most project/office managers, unless they trained at 3 Equity Court......

 
LeonardoDaVnci said:
Or maybe Pannick doesn't know for some reason, because its possible according to my learned friend ChatGPT (never wrong)

A barrister is typically not the primary recipient of court communications. They are instructed to present the case but are not always the administrative contact. So it’s entirely possible for: an in-house company lawyer (legal counsel and employee) to be informed before the barrister (LP).

Keeping Pannick out of the loop sounds ridiculous but what if the PL have also cut out their barristers and the City and PL in house legal teams know the outcomes, hush hush, because its so bad for one of them ie the PL
Click to expand...
On the contrary, almost certain that the barrister gets the decision first or at least immediately once received. No analysis is required when Pannick says the decision isn't out and they don't know when it is coming. It is the horse's mouth.
 
Just listened to @slbsn being interviewed on Jake Humphrey’s podcast.

I know everyone likes to knock LinkedIn Jake but in fairness it was a really well conducted conversation and Jake took a back seat and gave Stefan enough space to share his insight.

A really good listen and the conversation wasn’t really just about City it was about football finance in general.
 
LeonardoDaVnci said:
Standard Chartered, the highly controversial sponsor of LFC, is once again embroiled in a terrorism-related scandal. How long will it be before the Premier League and the The Football Association investigate this questionable commercial arrangement, in line with their corporate governance obligations?

Click to expand...
The Prem won't care as long as doesn't break their selective rules, and the FA are too busy bringing their prime tournament into disrepute.
 
Johnny Mars Bar said:
Just listened to @slbsn being interviewed on Jake Humphrey’s podcast.

I know everyone likes to knock LinkedIn Jake but in fairness it was a really well conducted conversation and Jake took a back seat and gave Stefan enough space to share his insight.

A really good listen and the conversation wasn’t really just about City it was about football finance in general.
Click to expand...
did he say it’s imminent?
 
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