City launch legal action against the Premier League | City win APT case (pg901)

[Oldham Exile]

I’ve just checked the author, Christian Smith, out on LinkedIn.

https://uk.linkedin.com/in/christian-smith-5345a9121?

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a sports law firm called Solesbury Gay Limited, that ceased operating whilst he was there and whose licence to practise was revoked the month afterwards, following which he appears to have decided to engage in a career in journalism. It’s not clear why their licence was revoked, but at best I would suggest it was because they were unable to generate enough work to meet their regulatory obligations, at worst because of matters of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 2DR

www.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.

Good work that man - very informative for many of us I expect

 

[halfcenturyup]

LOL. There was actually a job advertised recently with the shadow football regulator dealing with financial policies and regulation.

I was very tempted to apply but it would've involved a significant pay cut from my current role.

I didn't realise Bluemoon guru paid so much .....

 

[Gazza]

I feel this is the reason Masters ducked out of his golf day with the PL's broadcasters.

Imagine the investment the broadcasters made being undermined & threatened by the very organisation who sold them the product? It's fucking business suicide!

Personally, if I was a TV Executive, by the 2nd hole I'd have told Masters to end the bullshit. City are the most watched team on the planet, in the most popular league, & the PL are risking killing the goose that laid the golden egg all to appease the Cartel, one of whom is down in 14th & rumoured to be looking for yet ANOTHER manager?

I've honestly never seen a business go to such lengths to kill themselves & their product. La Liga & the rest must be loving this!

It's like a newsagent stocking only Cresta & Ben Shaws soft drinks instead of Coke & Pepsi because he wants to give the history beverages a chance.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Dunno what @tolmie's hairdoo has heard, but sounds intriguing nonetheless.

I was told this week, by a reliable source who deals with senior PL officials regularly, that many of them are appalled at the way Masters has been manipulated by the red cartel, and are very sympathetic to us.

He doesn't even have the confidence of his own senior managers. Why aren't all these well-connected journalists reporting this?

 

[Champions again in 2012]

One potential explanation is that Nielsen used different baseline data sets for each validation. We already know from the ruling that the PL were not prepared to share details of their database with us. Perhaps it is biased towards where we came from, versus where we are now / potential future value.

Designed to keep us in our place as such.

Notwithstanding that they should have realised they were about to cause a shitstorm by producing two completely different answers to the same evaluation. The process should be the process and as a minimum they should have highlighted the discrepancies to the Premier League. If the only difference between the two evaluations is the underlying data used to score the different outcomes that should have been given as a caveat / warning as a bare minimum. I fail to see how Nielsen do not have some culpability here. Only they knew that they had effectively produced two versions of the truth that seem to be diametrically opposed

 

[sir baconface]

Joking or not, you were right. Judgment is correct when talking of a legal judgment. Judgement is right in other cases.

Check out @gordondaviesmoustache 's posts for correct usage.

The thread is becoming a platform for sesqipedalian oneupmanship and grammatical pedants.

(So I thought I might as well join in.)

 

[TonyColemansbagofapples]

Dunno what @tolmie's hairdoo has heard, but sounds intriguing nonetheless.

He is being thrown under a bus. Is it decked out in Arsenal livery, Arteta driving it?

 

[Stockton Heath Blue]

Also, if I have understood this correctly, when they gave the Premier League the valuation we were the reigning European champions so surely our stock would have risen. I agree that all confidence in Nielsen to act independently has gone and their services need to be dispensed with immediately. For them not to inform the Premier League that they had provided an FMV assessment to City for the same deal at a considerably higher value is shambolic to say the very least

Wouldn't that have been a conflict of interest???

 

[marco]

i wait for the post saying the plug has been pulled on the 115, i do think this will happen sooner than later

 

[lancs blue]

The thread is becoming a platform for sesqipedalian oneupmanship and grammatical pedants.

(So I thought I might as well join in.)

sesquipedalian, please.