wolviedinho
Well-Known Member
Not if they want paid it isn’t.Is it normal for two sets of lawyers to have two different views on the law ?
Surly the law is the law ?
Arguing about obscure rules is a lawyers wet dream.
it’s a swizz -:)
Not if they want paid it isn’t.Is it normal for two sets of lawyers to have two different views on the law ?
Surly the law is the law ?
The irony…. We’ve all seen the bitter letters on Arsenal headed paper.City can’t be sending letters?
Fuck off you silly little ****.
Along with the City are bullying the PL stories...I think we'll lose the vote tomorrow with Everton and Wolves rumoured to be changing their position compared to last time. It'll not be the end of the matter though as City will just challenge it again. Cue for more multi-millions costs to lining the lawyers pockets.
Is it normal for two sets of lawyers to have two different views on the law ?
Surly the law is the law ?
Is it normal for two sets of lawyers to have two different views on the law ?
Surly the law is the law ?
Edited ;)I prefer Martin Samuel to be honest. I'm not sure who this Martin Samuel's is you speak of ;)
Correct , as per Covid enquiry STILL going on at ridiculous costsNot if they want paid it isn’t.
Arguing about obscure rules is a lawyers wet dream.
it’s a swizz -:)
I can’t see how legally they would able to get away with changing the rules, and then applying them retrospectively. It would leave the Premier League open to so much legal action. On top of this, if they decided to go after Everton, then other clubs are absolutely goosed as well, including at least 1 Redtop.
However, I know the Premier League, and I firmly believe that they will be holding Everton’s takeover approval to ransom over it.
Or simply because they are illegal.I’m assuming City want the amended rules thrown out so we can get the Etihad deal through under the old rules?