He's in his mid-30's and has spent all his career in academia, as a student, research fellow or a lecturer. Whereas Leaf is a practicing lawyer in Sports Law.Zglinski is clearly a bitter **** and should never be referenced on here again.
Just posted on this. He's purely an academic.Not even sure if the fourth one is a lawyer. I’d say he’s almost certainly not a practising one. I’m always wary of academics talking about the implications of determinations because they don’t have a feel for things like those at the coal face do. Only a lived experience can give you that instinct.
And that is exactly what is wrong with the structure of the PL. The PL should be proposing rules that are for the benefit of the league as a whole, not just any old rule stupid rule that 14 myopic clubs will vote for.
You can be sure Masters is talking to the legal people from Liverpool, Arsenal and United to decide what to do next. The ****.
Three that ruled in our favour are lawyers or barristers it seems The one against is a teacher.
We've all worked with them, all the certificates from university and zero experience - when things in real life don't go as per the text book - they're fucked.He's in his mid-30's and has spent all his career in academia, as a student, research fellow or a lecturer. Whereas Leaf is a practicing lawyer in Sports Law.
I think someone said on here a while back that an academic could have a very different standpoint on an issue compared to a "real" lawyer.
And after a liquid lunch!Can he do it on a cold wet day in Birmingham at the Small Claims Court?
…and rallying around Richard. Guess he is on his own now.
With or without the paddle?in a single canoe heading down Shit Creek
I agree the tribunal probably thought they had bigger fish to fry, but City plainly did challenge the explanation of why the new rules on APTs were introduced. What surprised me was that these apparent concerns the PL and the clubs had about why the previous RPT rules were ineffective was given so little scrutiny. The tribunal seems to have ignored the possibility that the evidence from the redshirts and others was self serving, and they seem to have ignored the possibility that concrete examples of the RPT system being abused appear to have been non existent. As you say, there may have been reasons on both sides not to rely too much on UEFAs failure to land the RPT allegations re Etihad but it has been known for a tribunal to be all the more interested in evidence that both sides appear not to want to dwell on.In fairness, either City didn’t challenge the evidence effectively, thought it futile to challenge or the Tribunal rejected City’s arguments on the reality of RPTs. If City had made material submissions on the point, I suspect we’d have seen them in the judgment so, most likely, we tactically decided to fight other battles especially as it sounds like there were no documents disclosed on the topic before 2021.
In reality, it seems to me that it couldn’t be said to be that hard to challenge a designation of a RPT given that UEFA did exactly that in 2014 (assuming the press was true that it concluded both Etihad and Etisalat were actually RPTs "In 2014 Uefa’s consultants, reported to be PwC, are understood to have advised the CFCB that Aabar and Etisalat were “related parties” to City because Mansour was the chairman of the investment funds which owned them. After further research Uefa was also advised that Etihad should be considered a related sponsor because of relationships of Mansour’s with members of the extended ruling family involved in the airline." https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...accounting-sponsorships-uefa-champions-league) - although it didn’t bother in 2020.
City couldn’t make that submission however without bringing focus to UEFAs conclusion that City’s accounts were wrong on that point.
With or without the paddle?