Colin Bells Boots
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 16,748
- Team supported
- Manchester City
They were running out of candidates that could clearly be manipulated by the redshirt clubs.
City launch legal action against the Premier League | City win APT case (pg901)
- Thread starter denislawsbackheel
- Start date
They were running out of candidates that could clearly be manipulated by the redshirt clubs.
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
A box of pagers?
He's worked with people now employed by Slaughter & May and also Bird and Bird, both of whom work for the PL.I’ve just checked the author, Christian Smith, out on LinkedIn.
His only practical experience in the UK was as an associate for three years for a sports law firm called Solesbury Gay Limited, that ceased operating whilst he was there and whose licence to practise was revoked the month afterwards, following which he appears to have decided to engage in a career in journalism. It’s not clear why their licence was revoked, but at best I would suggest it was because they were unable to generate enough work to meet their regulatory obligations, at worst because of matters of professional misconduct. If they been moved on as a going concern then I wouldn’t expect to see a revocation, especially so promptly. SRA link here:
Register of licensed bodies - Solesbury Gay Limited 648998
Solesbury Gay Limited - 648998, Linstead House, 9 , Disraeli Road, , Putney, London, , SW15 2DRwww.sra.org.uk
He didn’t attain his legal qualifications in the UK (New Zealand) and whilst that of itself isn’t a bar to having a successful legal career in this country, it’s certainly a worthwhile factor to consider when taken in conjunction with someone’s career achievements.
So, based on the foregoing I would say he has insufficient real and practical experience on the subject matter to hold a legal opinion that should be given any meaningful weight. The extent of his practical legal experience was as an associate for a firm that failed, following which he decided to switch careers.
That will have entailed a huge reduction in his potential earnings. Not holding that against anyone, but it is perfectly reasonable to take that into account when evaluating what weight to attach to an article where he offers his opinion on a finding of law and its implications. It’s perfectly reasonable to conclude that if his opinions and analysis were worthwhile then he’d still be in practice. And he’s not.
So his assessment may not be biased, but personally speaking, in the context of being invited to give it any weight, I don’t think it’s worth a wank.
The next on the list was John Aldridge and Paddy Crerand.
I did go back. This bit of the article is simply wrong:
"Secondly, it found that a number of changes made to the APT rules in February were in breach of competition law. These changes were highly technical. In essence, amendments in the rules would make it more difficult for a club to meet the fair market value test. However, they only related to the APT rules since January, rather than since the original rules introduction in 2021. The tribunal found these changes constituted a breach of competition law. Man City’s other competition law challenges failed."
The Tribunal found that the original rules were also unlawful. (And somehow the article misses out the word "unlawful".)
Aa a "law report" it's pathetic.
Last edited:
Rammy Blue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 23 May 2008
- Messages
- 30,422
Needs a double, if not treble, like. Slam dunk.I’ve just checked the author, Christian Smith, out on LinkedIn.
His only practical experience in the UK was as an associate for three years for a sports law firm called Solesbury Gay Limited, that ceased operating whilst he was there and whose licence to practise was revoked the month afterwards, following which he appears to have decided to engage in a career in journalism. It’s not clear why their licence was revoked, but at best I would suggest it was because they were unable to generate enough work to meet their regulatory obligations, at worst because of matters of professional misconduct. If they been moved on as a going concern then I wouldn’t expect to see a revocation, especially so promptly. SRA link here:
Register of licensed bodies - Solesbury Gay Limited 648998
Solesbury Gay Limited - 648998, Linstead House, 9 , Disraeli Road, , Putney, London, , SW15 2DRwww.sra.org.uk
He didn’t attain his legal qualifications in the UK (New Zealand) and whilst that of itself isn’t a bar to having a successful legal career in this country, it’s certainly a worthwhile factor to consider when taken in conjunction with someone’s career achievements.
So, based on the foregoing I would say he has insufficient real and practical experience on the subject matter to hold a legal opinion that should be given any meaningful weight. The extent of his practical legal experience was as an associate for a firm that failed, following which he decided to switch careers.
That will have entailed a huge reduction in his potential earnings. Not holding that against anyone, but it is perfectly reasonable to take that into account when evaluating what weight to attach to an article where he offers his opinion on a finding of law and its implications. It’s perfectly reasonable to conclude that if his opinions and analysis were worthwhile then he’d still be in practice. And he’s not.
So his assessment may not be biased, but personally speaking, in the context of being invited to give it any weight, I don’t think it’s worth a wank.
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
Neither are reputable, so yes.
Neither of them could be expected to comment or give insight in a way that was reliable or objective. Both have track records which display a clear tendency to promote certain interests in a way that would render their reliability as a source to be worthless.
Plus they are both cunts.
It wasn't sent to me, but I've read it.
I’ve just checked the author, Christian Smith, out on LinkedIn.
His only practical experience in the UK was as an associate for three years for a sports law firm called Solesbury Gay Limited, that ceased operating whilst he was there and whose licence to practise was revoked the month afterwards, following which he appears to have decided to engage in a career in journalism. It’s not clear why their licence was revoked, but at best I would suggest it was because they were unable to generate enough work to meet their regulatory obligations, at worst because of matters of professional misconduct. If they been moved on as a going concern then I wouldn’t expect to see a revocation, especially so promptly. SRA link here:
Register of licensed bodies - Solesbury Gay Limited 648998
Solesbury Gay Limited - 648998, Linstead House, 9 , Disraeli Road, , Putney, London, , SW15 2DRwww.sra.org.uk
He didn’t attain his legal qualifications in the UK (New Zealand) and whilst that of itself isn’t a bar to having a successful legal career in this country, it’s certainly a worthwhile factor to consider when taken in conjunction with someone’s career achievements.
So, based on the foregoing I would say he has insufficient real and practical experience on the subject matter to hold a legal opinion that should be given any meaningful weight. The extent of his practical legal experience was as an associate for a firm that failed, following which he decided to switch careers.
That will have entailed a huge reduction in his potential earnings. Not holding that against anyone, but it is perfectly reasonable to take that into account when evaluating what weight to attach to an article where he offers his opinion on a finding of law and its implications. It’s perfectly reasonable to conclude that if his opinions and analysis were worthwhile then he’d still be in practice. And he’s not.
So his assessment may not be biased, but personally speaking, in the context of being invited to give it any weight, I don’t think it’s worth a wank.
Only did 3 years at a sports law firm and instead now is a well connected legal journalist?
You're right, let's believe Martin Samuel instead whose qualifications seem to be "says what I prefer to hear".
This guy is Associate Professor at LSE Law School and Research Fellow of the Oxford Institute of European and Comparative Law. He says essentially the same as Stefan and The Lawyer.
Centurions
Well-Known Member
That sadly is the way of the world now, the yanks have been like that for ever. No one actually considers anything anymore and thinks about the possibility that the other side may have a point.